Delhi High Court
Asha Bhatnagar vs Cbi on 9 April, 2015
Author: Sunil Gaur
$~6
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Dated of Decision: 9th April, 2015
+ CRL.M.C. 123/2015
ASHA BHATNAGAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Husband-Mr. S.K. Bahadur
versus
CBI ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special
Public Prosecutor for CBI with Mr.
Manoj Pant & Ms. Utkarsha,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
% (O R A L)
The prayer made in this petition is to release `2,00,300/-
TBM/TAR/2009/1/091187 dated 10th October, 2013, Bank of Baroda,
East of Kailash, New Delhi to petitioner through her attorney Shri S.K.
Bahadur, her husband, along with interest accrued thereon upon
furnishing indemnity bond to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned.
Similar prayer was made in Crl. M.C. No. 4060/2011 and it was
declined vide order of 19th March, 2013 with direction to the trial court to
make all endeavours to expedite trial of that old case and to conclude it
within the calendar year of 2013.
CRL.M.C. 123/2015 Page 1
A report regarding progress of trial of this case was called from the
trial court, which has been received. Upon perusal of the trial court's
report, it becomes evident that 116 witnesses are to be examined and out
of them 50 witnesses have been examined till date. It emerges from the
trial court's report that vide order of 21st March, 2015, the prosecution
has been directed to get the Investigating Officer's examination on 6th &
7th April, 2015. This shows that after recording of the evidence of the
Investigating Officer, the prosecution evidence shall stand closed. Trial
court has ensured that all endeavours would be made to promptly
conclude trial of this case. On behalf of petitioner, reliance was placed
upon Apex Court's decision in Vakil Prasad Singh v. State of Bihar 2009
CRI.L.J. 1731 to submit that prosecution, which was pending since the
year 1990 was quashed by the Apex Court in the year 2009 because the
prosecution had failed to show exceptional circumstances, which could
possibly be taken into consideration for condoning the inordinate delay of
more than two decades.
Mr. Narender Mann, learned Special Public Prosecutor for
respondent-CBI has placed reliance upon a later decision of Apex Court
in Ranjan Dwivedi v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2012) 8 SCC 495
to point out that the delay in criminal proceedings of nearly 37 years did
not justify the quashing of the criminal prosecution as it is to be seen as to
who is responsible for the delay. It was submitted on behalf of
respondent that the delay in the instant case is not wholly attributable to
respondent and so it is not a fit case of quashing of the criminal
prosecution.
Upon considering submissions advanced by both the sides and on
CRL.M.C. 123/2015 Page 2
perusal of the report regarding progress of the trial court and the decisions
cited, I find that there is no presumptive prejudice caused to the petitioner
on account of delay in trial. It is not shown that the delay occasioned is
wholly attributable to respondent-CBI. Otherwise also, now the trial of
this case is at the stage of recording of evidence of Investigating Officer,
therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the criminal prosecution.
However, trial court is directed to take effective steps to ensure a speedy
disposal of this case and shall ensure that trial of this case is concluded on
or before 31st August, 2015.
This petition is accordingly dismissed with direction to trial court
to submit compliance report.
Copy of this order be sent to trial court forthwith.
(SUNIL GAUR)
Judge
APRIL 09, 2015
vn
CRL.M.C. 123/2015 Page 3
