Court No. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 17310 of 2021 Applicant :- Darshan Lal Nagpal Opposite Party :- C.B.I.
Counsel for Applicant :- Nitin Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav And Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 5444 of 2009 Revisionist :- D.L. Nagpal Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Spe Dehradun And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satish Kumar Tyagi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.S. Hajela
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant in anticipatory bail application and assisted by Sri Satish Kumar Tyagi, learned counsel for the revisionist in the revision and learned AGA for the State.
Submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant in the anticipatory bail application is that the applicant is not named in the FIR having CNR No.UPGZ01010103902021 Computer Reg. No.6088/2021 RC No.0072006A0005 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Special CBI, Dehradun and the case is pending before the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Ghaziabad.
From the record it has been culled out that the FIR was registered on 28.2.2006. Since the applicant is not named in the FIR but during investigation the name of the applicant has figured up, accordingly the charge sheet was submitted by the CBI on 14.7.2009. Challenging the charge sheet and the summoning order, Criminal Revision No.5444 of 2009 was preferred by the applicant/revisionist and interim order was granted on 25.11.2009 (Annexure-4 to the affidavit accompanying the bail application). The said interim order was continued for a considerable period and eventually vacated on 23.2.2021 and thereafter the learned trial Judge has issued non bailable warrant against the applicant on 8.3.2021.
Since the applicant/revisionist of both the proceedings are the same i.e. Darshan Lal Nagpal with regard to same FIR having CNR No.UPGZ01010103902021 Computer Reg.
No.6088/2021 RC No.0072006A0005 under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC, P.S. Special CBI, Dehradun and the case is pending before the court of Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Ghaziabad, in the interest of justice and keeping in view the fact that the matter is pending since 2006, I find that while protecting the interest of the applicant, the applicant is directed to appear before the majesty of the court armed with the application under Section 88 of the CrPC and the court concerned shall decide the said application ensuring the attendance of the applicant with or without sureties on the date fixed. It is incumbent upon the applicant that he would give solemn undertaking to the court that the applicant shall make his presence ensured as and when required by the court. After this exercise is over, the applicant is given liberty to move discharge application raising all legal as well as factual aspects on which he wants to rely upon and the court concerned after hearing the Public Prosecutor shall decide the discharge application strictly in accordance with law by a well reasoned order within a period of six weeks from the date of filing of such discharge application.
Till the disposal of the discharge application, no coercive action shall be taken against the applicant.
It is made clear that in the event the discharge application is decided against the applicant, the applicant shall have no other option but to surrender before the authority of the court and seek regular bail and thereafter participate in the trial.
With the aforesaid observations, the anticipatory bail application as well as the revision stand disposed of.
Order Date :- 23.12.2021 SP