Vijay Singh vs C.B.I
2023 Latest Caselaw 35933 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vijay Singh vs C.B.I on 20 December, 2023

Author: Rajeev Misra

Bench: Rajeev Misra

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:241341
 
Court No. - 65
 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 53422 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Vijay Singh
 
Opposite Party :- C.B.I
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Kartikeya Shukla,Randhir Jain,Sr. Advocate
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
 
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
 

1. Heard Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Randhir Jain alongwith Mr. Kartikeya Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I.

2. Perused the record.

3. This repeat application for bail has been filed by applicant-Vijay Singh, seeking his enlargement on bail in R.C.218/2023-A-0003, under Sections 120-B, 420 IPC & Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of P.C. Act, Police Station-CBI/AC-III, Delhi, District- Delhi during the pendency of trial.

4. The first bail application of applicant was rejected by a detailed order dated 30.05.2023 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Bail Application Nos.22790 of 2023 and 22147 of 2023. For ready reference, the same is reproduced hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Rajan Mishra and Kartikeya Shukla, the learned counsel for applicant-Vijay Singh, Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Ami Tandon and Sushil Kumar Mishra, the learned counsel for applicant-Mukesh Kumar and Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I.

2. Rejoinder affidavit filed by the learned counsel for applicants in both the applications in Court today, are taken on record.

3. Perused the record.

4.These applications for bail have been filed by applicants Vijay Singh and Mukesh Kumar seeking their enlargement on bail in Case Crime Number registered as FIR No. RC-218-2023-A-0003, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC, Police Station-C.B.I. AC-III New Delhi during the pendency of trial.

5. At the very outset, it is jointly urged by the learned Senior Counsel that two of the named accused namely Aditya Awashthi and Shiv Dayal Sharma have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 05.05.2023. For ready reference, the order dated 05.05.2023 is re-produced hereinunder:-

"1. Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tejasvi Misra, the learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Gyan Prakash, the Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I.

2. Perused the record.

3. Aforementioned Bail Applications arise out of the same case crime number. Consequently, they were connected vide order dated 17.04.2023. As a result, both the applications have been heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order.

4. Record shows that an FIR dated 20.02.2023 was lodged against applicants and was registered as FIR No. 2182023A0003/AC-III, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC, Police Station-C.B.I. AC-III, New Delhi. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons have been nominated as named accused whereas some unknown public servants and private persons have also been arraigned as accused.

5. The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that information was received that bribe was given to Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Construction) T.R.M. Office Campus Division, North Central Railway.

6. Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel for applicants contends that from the perusal of the recital contained under the heading "information" which is part of the FIR giving rise to present application for bail, it is evident that the criminal proceedings have been initiated against applicants on the basis of hearsay evidence. The applicants are alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC. In the light of above, he contends that in order to evoke Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the acid test of demand and acceptance as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 is not satisfied in the present case up to this stage. He also submits that once the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act are not satisfied, the applicants cannot be implicated under other charging sections of the P.C. Act.

7. According to the learned Senior Counsel, conspiracy is a closed door affair and therefore, the same is subject to trial evidence. As per the material on record, it cannot be conclusively concluded that applicants have conspired in the commission of the alleged crime. The applicants are the Managing Director/Direction of the company namely M/s Shivakriti Internation Ltd. Office at 707-710, 7th Floor, Corporate Park, Gopalbari, Ajmer Pulia Jaipur, Rajasthan but except for above, there is not other material on record to establish the alleged guilt of applicants up to this stage.

8. Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

9. Per contra, Mr. Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I. have opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submission urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

10. Having heard, Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tejasvi Misra, the learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I. and upon perusal of material brought on record, the complicity of applicants and accusations made coupled with the fact that except for hearsay evidence, there is no other evidence against applicants up to this stage, prima-facie, the acid test required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 P.C. Act as explained by the Constitution Bench referred to above being not satisfied, conspiracy being a closed door affair and therefore subject to trial evidence, applicants being men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

11. Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed.

12. Let the applicants, Aditya Awasthi and Shiv Dayal Sharma be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 5.5.2023."

6. It is next jointly contended by the learned Senior Counsel that up to this stage neither the demand nor the acceptance of the alleged demand has been proved against applicants. It is thus urged that since the acid test "Demand and Acceptance" which is required to be established for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 (paragraph 68) is not satisfied against applicants up to this stage, as such, applicants are liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant Vijay Singh is a Government Employee and a member of the Indian Railway Engineering Services. On date, applicant Mukesh Kumar is working as Deputy Chief Signal & Telecom Engineer (Construction), DRM Office Campus, Agra Division, North Central Railways. Applicant Vijay Singh is in jail since 20.02.2023. As such, he has undergone more than 2 and 1/2 months of incarceration. Even otherwise, applicant Vijay Singh has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. In case, applicant Vijay Singh is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. In respect of applicant-Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Chief Signal & Telecom Engineer (Construction), DRM Office Campus, Agra Division, North Central Railways, the learned Senior Counsel submits that applicant-Mukesh Kumar is in jail since 21.02.2023. As such, he has also undergone more than 2 and 1/2 months of incarceration. Applicant-Mukesh Kumar is also a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as, he has no criminal history to his credit except the present one. In case, applicant-Mukesh Kumar is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

7. Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant-Vijay Singh contends that it is true that applicant was caught red handed and a sum of Rs. 5,51,000/- was recovered from the applicant-Vijay Singh. However, no chemical test in respect of the said recovery was conducted. According to the learned Senior Counsel as per the admitted case of the prosecution as is evident from the charge sheet (at page 56 of the paper book), a loss of Rs. 26,40,659/- was pointed out on account of deficient supply of the requisite material i.e. Polyolefin Channel. The cash surrendered by the applicant was in respect of the fulfillment of the aforesaid demand i.e. the excess amount taken by the firm M/s Shivkirti International Ltd. On the above premise, he submits that at this stage, it cannot be said that there was any illegal demand by applicant and hence there was acceptance of the same.

8. Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant-Mukesh Kumar contends that in the case of applicant-Mukesh Kumar, there is no evidence of demand or acceptance. As such, no offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can be said to have committed by applicant. The only evidence that has emerged against applicants is in the statement of Pramod Singh and Brahmanand Awashthi but they could not give the details of the said act of the applicant. As such, applicant-Mukesh Kumar is liable to be enlarged on bail.

9. Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel representing C.B.I. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that applicant-Vijay Singh was caught red handed with cash of Rs. 5,51,000/-. However, no chemical test was conducted in respect of the recovery alleged to have made from the applicant. The recovery was made neither from the office of the applicant nor from the residence of the applicant but at an another place. Referring to the material on record, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. contends that demand in respect of the Mr. Vijay Singh has been clearly established and it was pursuant to the demand raised by him for settling the issue with regard to the loss of Rs. 26,40,659/- to the Government that the said demand was made. As such, acid test required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 of the PC Act is clearly satisfied against applicant-Vijay Singh. The demand alleged to have been raised by applicant-Vijay Singh also stands corroborated by the electronic evidence as referred to in paragraph 16.2.24 of the charge sheet. There is nothing on record up to this stage, on the basis of the veracity of the said material could be contradicted.

10. In rejoinder Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel has rejoined his earlier submission in respect of the recital contained in paragraph 16.2.24. Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel contends that veracity of the said material is subject to trial evidence but that by itself cannot lead to the prima-facie conclusion that applicant is guilty of having violated Section 7 of the PC Act.

10. Having heard, Mr. V.P. Srivastava, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant-Vijay Singh, Mr. Anoop Trivedi, the learned Senior Counsel for applicant-Mukesh Kumar, Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. and upon perusal of record, evidence, complicity of accused, accusations made coupled with the fact that recovery to the tune of Rs. 5,10,000/- has been made from applicant-Vijay Singh, no explanation regarding the recovery so made has been offered by applicant-Vijay Singh whereas no recovery has been made from applicant-Mukesh Kumar, the offence under Section 7 Prevention of Corruption Act is prima-facie not made out against applicant-Mukesh Kumar inasmuch as, the acid test of "Demand and Acceptance" as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta (Supra), is not satisfied against applicant-Mukesh Kumar, the clean antecedents of applicant-Mukesh Kumar, the charge sheet having been submitted, therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant-Mukesh Kumar now stands crystallized, no such circumstance has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel representing C.B.I. for the custodial arrest of applicant-Mukesh Kumar during the pendency of trial, but without making any comments on the merits of the case, the bail application of applicant-Mukesh Kumar is liable to be allowed whereas that of applicant-Vijay Singh is liable to be rejected.

11. Accordingly, the bail application of applicant-Vijay Singh is rejected whereas the bail application of applicant-Mukesh Kumar is Allowed.

12. Let the applicant-Mukesh Kumar, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

13. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above. "

5. Learned Senior Counsel for applicant submits that the charge-sheet was submitted against applicant on 21.04.2023. In spite of the fact that a period of eight months has rolled by from the date of submission of charge-sheet, the conginzance in terms of Section 190(1)b Cr.P.C. has not yet been taken by court concerned inasmuch as the requisite sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act/Section 197 of Cr.P.C. has not yet been accorded by the competent authority. Referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak, 1992 (1) SCC 225, it is urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicant that right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused. Since the applicant is in custody, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for the delay in the progress of trial. The applicant is being made to suffer on account of the inaction on the part of the competent authority in not taking a decision in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act/Section 197 Cr.P.C. He, therefore, submits that in view of above, applicant is entitled to be admitted to bail.

6. Even otherwise the applicant is a man of clean antecedents inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit, except the present one. Applicant is in jail since 20.02.2023. As such, he has undergone more than eight months of incarceration. The police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized. Moreover, no such circumstance has emerged on record necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the course of trial. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgement of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 846 (Paragraph 5). He, therefore, submits that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. In case, the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. Referring to the bail rejection order passed by this Court, he submits that in view of categorical facts and circumstances noted by this Court in the bail rejection order referred to above, no indulgence be granted by this Court in favour of applicant. However, he could not dislodge the factual/legal submissions urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

8. Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned counsel representing C.B.I., upon perusal of record, evidence, nature and gravity of offence, accusations made and complicity of applicant coupled with the fact that since a period of eight months have rolled by from the date of submission of the charge-sheet, the conginzance in terms of Section 190(1)b Cr.P.C. could not be taken by court concerned on account of the fact that the requisite sanction in terms of Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act/Section 197 Cr.P.C. has not yet been accorded by the competent authority, therefore, the applicant has been made to suffer on account of the inaction on the part prosecution, consequently in view of the law laid by Supreme Court in A.R. Antulay (supra) since right of speedy trial is a fundamental right of an accused, which stands infringed on account of lackadaisical approach of the competent authority, the clean antecedents of applicant inasmuch as he has no criminal history to his credit, except the present one, applicant is in jail since 20.02.2023, as such, he has undergone more than eight months of incarceration, the police report in terms of Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. has already been submitted and therefore, the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands crystallized, yet in spite of above the learned counsel representing C.B.I. could not point out any such circumstance necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another (supra) therefore, irrespective of the objections raised by the learned counsel representing C.B.I. in opposition to the present application for bail but without making any comment on the merits of the case applicant has made out a case for bail.

9. Accordingly this repeat application for bail is allowed.

10. Let the applicant Vijay Singh, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

11. However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

Order Date :- 20.12.2023/Zafar