Allahabad High Court
Rajat Goel vs Central Bureau Of Investivation ... on 27 October, 2015
Bench: Arun Tandon, Vipin Sinha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 25787 of 2015
Petitioner :- Rajat Goel
Respondent :- Central Bureau Of Investivation (A.C.B.Ghaziabad)
Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddhartha Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- Nazrul Islam Jafri
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Vipin Sinha,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned A.G.A.
This petition, in our opinion, is an abuse of the process of the Court. The reasons for recording such a conclusion are as follows :
Proceedings being Criminal Misc. Case No. 07 of 2015 (C.B.I. Vs. Ram Singh Thakur and Others) are pending in the Court of Special Judge ? 01, C.B.I., ACB, Ghaziabad, U.P. under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and under Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with reference to the First Information Report dated 30.06.2012 registered as R.C. No. 1202012A0005.
In the said proceedings a charge-sheet has already been submitted wherein petitioner has been named as one of the accused.
Petitioner before this Court, Rajat Goel, filed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. being Application No. 28302 of 2015. One of the prayer made in the application was for quashing of the impugned charge-sheet or the entire proceedings. At the time of arguments counsel for the applicant however submitted before the learned Judge that he is not pressing his prayer for quashing of the charge-sheet/proceedings. The relief as prayed is confined to the consideration of the proposed bail application in light of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Amrawati and others vs. State of U.P. reported in 2004 (57) ALR, 290. It was stated that the applicant was a law abiding citizen and shall surrender before the Trial Court.
It is on this statement that the learned Single Judge permitted the petitioner to surrender before the Court below and to make a bail application within four weeks from the date of the order i.e. 18.09.2015 with the direction that if such bail application is made, it shall be considered in accordance with law as laid down in the case of Amrawati and Other (supra) and in the case of Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC).
The learned Single Judge also provided protection during interregnum to the petitioner to the effect that no coercive measure shall be taken against the petitioner during the aforesaid period of one month or till the date of appearance before the Court below whichever is earlier.
Admittedly the period of one month has expired on 17.10.2015. It is also an admitted fact that petitioner has availed the benefit of interim protection provided under the order dated 18.09.2015 but the petitioner contrary to the statement made before the Single Judge that he is a law abiding citizen has avoided surrender before the Court below.
The present writ petition has been filed with the following prayer :
? (I) An appropriate writ, order of direction granting the protection/bail/arrest of stay during the course of trial, on the terms and conditions as may deem fit and proper in the Special Case No. 3/2015, Crl. Misc. Case No. 7/2015 (CBI Vs. Ram Singh Thakur) pending before Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption (CBI) Court No. 1, Ghaziabad under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 & 201 IPC, Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with FIR dated 30.06.2012 registered as R.C. No. 1202012A0005 at P.S. CBI, ACB, Ghaziabad.
(II) Pass such other and further order writ order or direction to which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.?
The only reason disclosed before this Court in support of this petition is that the father of the petitioner had also been granted an identical order in an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by the High Court. He surrendered but his interim bail application has been rejected, therefore, the petitioner apprehends same treatment .
We have gone through the records.
The Trial Judge has recorded cogent reasons for rejecting the interim bail application of the father of the petitioner (Ref. Page 458 of the present paper book).
We are of the considered opinion that no litigant can be permitted to play with the Court proceedings. Once the petitioner had obtained order from this Court in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for consideration of his bail application with protection for the period till he surrendered as was asked for before the learned Single Judge, cannot be permitted to not to comply with the same order in the matter of surrender within time permitted on the plea that the application filed by this father for consideration of interim bail has been rejected.
The proceedings taken by the father are independent of the proceedings to be taken by the petitioner.
The learned Single Judge in his order dated 18.09.2015 had indicated that no further extension of time in the matter of surrender shall be provided. In order to over come the said part of the order of the learned Single Judge, the present writ petition has been filed. This petition appears to be an attempt to seek further time in the matter of surrender.
Useful time of the Court has been wasted which could have been utilized for other purposes. Such practice has to be deprecated.
We, therefore, dismiss the present writ petition with cost of Rs.20,000/-. We further provide that the bail application of the petitioner shall not be considered till he deposits the cost of Rs.20,000/-.
Order Date :- 27.10.2015
VR
