Allahabad High Court
Mr. Badri Shrestha vs Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 4 April, 2023
Bench: Dinesh Kumar Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 17
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 797 of 2023
Applicant :- Mr. Badri Shrestha
Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Thru.Superitendent Of Police And Head Branch Cbi.Acb
Counsel for Applicant :- Aditya Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Aditya Singh, learned counsel appearing for the accused-applicant and Sri Anurag Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Central Bureau of Investigation.
2. This is second application for anticipatory bail filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking bail apprehending his arrest in FIR No.RC0062017A0026 under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC, 13(2)/13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/ACB, Lucknow.
3. First bail application was rejected by this Court by a detailed judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.2102 of 2022.
4. Against the judgment and order dated 15.10.2022 passed by this Court, the accused-applicant approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.1459 of 2023. The Supreme Court disposed of the S.L.P. (Criminal) vide order dated 07.02.2023 which would read as under:-
"After some hearing, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner would present himself before the Trial Court and move for bail. He also submitted that the observations in the impugned order should not adversely impact the consideration of the application. It is clarified that in the event the petitioner applies for bail, the Trial Court shall consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by the orders of the courts.
The application is disposed of in the above terms.
Pending application (s), if any, are disposed of."
5. Instead of surrendering and moving an application as the liberty granted by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 07.02.2023, the accused-applicant has approached this Court again by filing the present second anticipatory bail application.
6. Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Advocate submits that second anticipatory bail application is maintainable as the same principles would apply for deciding the anticipatory bail application as are applicable in the case of regular bail application. He places reliance on some judgments/observations of the Supreme Court in this respect that the anticipatory bail application is a species of the bail application. He further submits that that after the Supreme Court has passed the order on 07.02.2023, there has been some development of law by the Supreme Court itself, and he has placed reliance on the following judgments/orders:-
(i) Satender Kumar Antil v CBI : SLP (Crl) No.5191 of 2021 order date 28.07.2021;
(ii) Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI : (2021) 10 SCC 773 Order Date 07.10.2021;
(iii) Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI: (2022) 10 SCC 51;
(iv) Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI in SLP (Crl) No.5191 of 2021 order date 13.03.2023;
(v) Mahdoom Bava vs CBI; SLP (Crl) No.376 of 2023 order date 20.03.2023; and
(vi) Satender Kumar Antil vs CBI; SLP (Crl) No.5191 of 2021 order date 21.03.2023.
7. Second bail application/anticipatory bail application is to be considered only on limited ground. Change of law or some new facts cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused on anticipatory bail whose Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) got dismissed by the Supreme Court. Second application for anticipatory bail is neither review nor appeal. For deciding a second bail application, there is limited ground which is change of circumstance. Change of some judgments in between cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused for anticipatory bail application particularly when he consented to comply with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 07.02.2023.
8. In view thereof, though this application for anticipatory bail should be rejected with heavy cost but at the present moment, the Court is refraining to impose heavy cost on the accused-applicant. I find no merit and substance as the accused-applicant has approached the Supreme Court against the judgment and order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court and while rejecting the Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal), the Supreme Court granted him liberty to surrender before the trial Court and file a regular bail which the accused-applicant has not done and instead he has filed present application for anticipatory bail. Thus, present application for anticipatory bail is hereby rejected.
(Dinesh Kumar Singh, J.)
Order Date :- 4.4.2023
prateek
