Delhi High Court
Manmohan Gupta vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 31 July, 2018
$~41
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on:- 31st July, 2018
+ CRL. M.C. 897/2018 and Crl.M.A.3328/2018 (stay)
MANMOHAN GUPTA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil K. Aggarwal,
Advocate
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Rajdipa Behura, Special PP
for CBI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA
ORDER (ORAL)
1. The petition at hand has been presented invoking the inherent
jurisdiction of this court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of
India with the prayer that the records of the court of Special Judge
(Prevention of Corruption Act) relating to the criminal case arising out
of the charge sheet No.10/2017 in first information report (FIR) of
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) vide RC No.219/16/E/0009 be
called for and directions be given to the trail Judge "not to insist on
production of blood - family surety" and for the "local surety"
produced by the petitioner (accused in the case) to be accepted
"without requiring production of fixed deposit receipt".
2. A co-ordinate bench (presided over by Anu Malhotra, J.), by
order dated 21.02.2018, deemed it necessary to peruse the "bail bond"
that statedly had been submitted by the petitioner and, thus, called for
the trial court record, directing at the same time that "no coercive
action be taken against the petitioners''.
3. The trial court record has been requisitioned and placed before
this court for perusal and consideration.
4. It appears that the Special Judge, by order dated 23.11.2017,
had allowed application of the petitioner, besides similar applications
of certain other accused, admitting him to bail on he furnishing
personal bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- with one surety in the like
amount to the satisfaction of the court, subject to certain further
conditions. The bail bond was presented before the special Judge on
the same day, i.e., 23.11.2017, which was accepted till 07.12.2017. On
07.12.2017, another endorsement was recorded on the bail bond to the
effect that the accused (petitioner) wanted to produce another surety.
On his request, the bail bond was accepted till 11.01.2018. By virtue
of subsequent endorsements dated 11.01.2018 and 21.02.2018, the
bail-bond stood accepted till 14.03.2018. The file, in fact, also
contains an application dated 11.01.2018, which had renewed the
aforesaid request that was orally made on 07.12.2017.
5. The petition at hand was presented in February, 2018 when the
restraint order against coercive action was issued. Given the reasons
as to why the bail bond was accepted till 11.01.2018, it is clear that the
petitioner himself wanted to come up with another surety. Instead of
producing another surety, the petitioner has rushed to this court with
the petition at hand.
6. There is nothing in the orders recorded by the Special Judge to
indicate that there was any insistence on a person related by blood to
be called as a surety. Needless to add, while accepting the surety bond,
the presiding officer of the criminal court is duty bond to inquire into,
and be satisfied about, such aspects as control of the person offering
himself as a surety over the accused and, indeed, his/her financial
soundness for the amount of the surety bond.
7. In these circumstances, the petition is found to be frivolous and
wholly devoid of substance.
8. The interim order dated 21.02.2018 is vacated. Given the
disruption in proceedings caused by said order, however, the
petitioner, is directed to appear before the Special Judge on or before
the date next fixed in the case and furnish fresh bail bonds to regulate
his presence in the further proceedings.
9. The petition and the applications filed therewith stand
dismissed.
10. The trial court record shall be returned forthwith.
R.K.GAUBA, J.
JULY 31, 2018
vk
