Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Rajesh Kumar Sharma – Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. - Respondents
Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No.4633 of 2022
Decided on : 09-12-2022
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509, 120B, 467, 468 – Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 19 – Punishment of criminal conspiracy – Punishment for extortion – Previous sanction necessary for persecution – Learned counsels for applicant learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar learned counsel for C.B.I. and perused record – Held, Application is held to be maintainable result would be that if an accused is arrested say for an offence committed of abduction and another case is registered against him for having committed murder and third case is-registered against him for having stolen car which was used for abduction in a different police station accused is granted anticipatory bail in respect to offence of stealing of car or in respect to offence of having committed murder concerned Police Investigating Agency where FIRs have been registered would be prevented from conducting individual investigation and making recoveries as anticipatory bail once granted would continue to operate without limitation as laid down by Apex Court – Appeal dismissed.
Key Points: - The application challenges maintainability of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C when the applicant is already arrested in another case (!) . - The court relies on precedent stating anticipatory bail would not lie if the person is already in custody in relation to another case (!) (!) . - The court dismisses the anticipatory bail application on the ground that the applicant is in custody in connection with another case, citing established law (!) . - Facts: applicant named in charges under IPC sections and PC Act; supplementary affidavit states arrest in Chandigarh in September 2022 (!) (!) . - The matter involves CBI/EO-I New Delhi case with multiple accused and charges (!) (!) . - Preliminary objection regarding maintainability was upheld (!) (!) . - The decision references and applies the principle from prior binding authority that anticipatory bail is not maintainable where the applicant is in custody in another case (!) (!) .
ORDER :
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Saxena, Sri Indra Raj, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
2. This anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicant Rajesh Kumar Sharma, seeking anticipatory bail, in the event of arrest in Special Case No. 01 of 2022, RC No. 2192019 E 006, registered at Police Station CBI/EO-1, New Delhi, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 13(2) r/w 13(1) (d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the C.B.I. raises a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by arguing that on the own showing of the applicant as per supplementary affidavit dated 11.10.2022, para-2 (2), it is stated that the applicant has been arrested in September 2022 in Case Crime No. 33 of 2022, under Sections 384, 420, 468, 471, 509 and 120B I.P.C., Police Station-Cyber Crime, Chandigarh, and as such the present anticipatory bail application is not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Sunil Kallani vs. State of Rajasthan : 2021 SCC OnLine Raj 1654 : SB Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 9155 of 2019, decided on 25.10.2021, wherein while dealing with the issue as to whether an application of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is maintainable if the said accused is in jail in connection with another criminal case for the similar offences or for different offences, it has been held that the same would not be maintainable.
4. In reply, learned counsel for the applicant argued that although the applicant is in jail in another case in Chandigarh, but the same would not bar grant of anticipatory bail to him as he apprehends that he would be taken into custody in the present case also.
5. The facts in brief of the present case are that a First Information Report was lodged on 29.6.2019 by Ms. Beena Vaheed, Dy. General Manager & Zonal Head, Corporation Bank, Delhi (North) as Case Crime No. RC 219 2019 E 0006 of 2019, Police Station CBI/EO-I, New Delhi, under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and substantive offences thereof, against nine persons namely (1) M/s Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mahadoom Bawa, (3) Deepak Gupta, (4) Seema Gupta, (5) Ram Murti Devi, (6) Vijay Kumar, (7) Vyas Dev, (8) Ravinder Pandita and (9) K Gangadharan.
The case related to fraud committed by M/s Naftogaz India Pvt. Ltd. in Noida-Mid Corporate Branch of the bank. Copy of the F.I.R. is annexure no. 2 in the bunch of documents filed collectively and stands at page-164 of the paper book.
The matter was investigated and a charge sheet no. 35 of 2021, dated 31.12.2021 was filed against 16 persons namely (1) M/s Nafto Gaz India Pvt. Ltd., (2) Mahdoom Bava, (3) Deepak Gupta, (4) Ravinder Pandita, (5) K. Gangadharan, (6) M/s Boom Buying Pvt. Ltd., (7) Rakesh Singh, (8) M/s CCL International Ltd., (9) Anil Kumar, (10) Akash Gupta, (11) M/s HM Informatics Pvt. Ltd., (12) Manoj Koul, (13) Rajesh Kumar Sharma, (14) Yatish Sharma, (15) Ramesha JS. and (16) M/s A B Petro Service Pvt. Ltd. in which the name of the applicant appears as accused no. 13 in the list of accused persons. The said charge sheet is at page-23 of the paper book (Annexure No. 2).
On the said charge sheet cognizance was taken by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption) C.B.I., Ghaziabad vide order 17.2.2022 against the accused persons named therein and they were summoned to face trial. In so far as the accused no. 15/Ramesha JS in the charge sheet is concerned, sanction for prosecution under Section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was taken since he was a public servant and he was also summoned to face trial.
6. This Court proceeds to decide the preliminary objection as raised by
Anticipatory bail applications are maintainable even if the petitioner is already in custody for another case, affirming the protection of personal liberty under Article 21.
A person in custody for one offense is not precluded from seeking anticipatory bail for another offense under Sec. 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the statutory provisions do not impose suc....
The power to grant Anticipatory Bail is available to the High Court and the Court of Sessions, even when cognizance is taken or a charge-sheet has been filed. The belief that the accused may be arres....
Anticipatory bail is an extraordinary remedy, granted sparingly in serious cases, and requires compliance with court conditions; failure to do so can lead to rejection of bail applications.
Anticipatory bail – Application seeking anticipatory bail would be maintainable even after filing of charge-sheet in Court. (Majority View)
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
