Court No. - 51
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27831 of 2021 Applicant :- Amit Varma Opposite Party :- C.B.I.-E.O.-I / New Delhi Counsel for Applicant :- Shivam Yadav,Akhilesh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Om Prakash-VII,J.
This Bail Application has been filed on behalf of the applicant – Amit Varma involved in R.C. No.2192016E0016 under sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and substantive offences thereof, Police Station C.B.I., E.O.-1 / New Delhi.
Heard Sri Shivam Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and perused the record.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that although this is the second bail application on behalf of the applicant, but bail order passed in respect of co-accused Ishma Arora in criminal misc. bail application no.20961 of 2020 was not placed before the Court. Thus, referring to the bail order passed in respect of co-accused Ishma Arora, it is submitted that applicant is also entitled to be released on bail on similar footing. He is languishing in jail since 28.8.2018. At this juncture, learned counsel has also referred to entire documents annexed with the application and further submitted that no prima facie case is made out against the applicant.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. opposed the prayer for bail and argued that bail order in respect of co-accused Ishma Arora was passed on 30.9.2020 whereas bail order in respect of present applicant on the first bail application was passed on 29.6.2021. Thus, order dated 30.9.2020 in respect of co-accused Ishma Arora was available at the time of disposal of the first bail application of the applicant. No other ground has been taken by the applicant. Thus, prayer for rejection of bail has been made.
I have considered the rival contentions raises by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the ground taken in the second bail application, which is not sufficient to allow it, the Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail.
The second application for bail of the accused-applicant is rejected.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 ss