Court No. - 44
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 29613 of 2019 Applicant :- Shiv Pratap Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Manoj Nigam Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Arvind Srivastava,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J.
Heard Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel the applicants, Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.K. Yadav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of C.B.I. and Sri Irshad Hussain, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the present application on behalf of applicant no. 2 be dismissed as infructuous as he has already been arrested and bail has been granted to him by the competent court.
Accordingly, the present application on behalf of applicant no. 2 Gyan Prakash Srivastava is dismissed as infructous. The Court proceed to hear the matter on behalf of applicant no. 1 Shiv Pratap Singh only.
The present 482 Cr.P.C. petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 22.10.2018 and 19.3.2019 passed by Special Judge, C.B.I. Court No. 1, Lucknow in case no. 2 of 2011 refusing to consider the applications under sections 265-B (applications for plea bargaining) and direct him to consider the said application without insisting the applicants to surrender and bail as provided in the provisions under section 265A and 265B Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that with regard to the dispute regarding money in question, the applicant filed an application before the Special Judge, C.B.I. Lucknow on 22.7.2017 and 9.10.2018 taking plea of bargaining and the Special Judge, C.B.I. after considering all the objections of the prosecution and the arguments in favour of the application of plea of bargaining passed an order that the disposal of the application has to be done as per the provisions of plea bargaining and, the application was referred to Lok Adalat for disposal on 22.4.2018 and ordered for notices to be served upon the parties. Despite of specific directions by the Court below, for service of notice upon the parties, no notice was served upon either of the parties and the application for plea bargaining could not be decided before the Lok Adalat. Special Judge, C.B.I. passed a different order on 22.10.2018 on the application moved by the applicant no. 1 and on 19.3.2019 on the application of applicant no. 2 respectively, deferring the consideration on the application for plea bargaining by imposing a condition that the applicants should obtain bail and only thereafter, their application for plea bargaining shall be considered, hence he filed the present petition. He submits that the applicnt is suffering from skin disease.
Learned counsel for the C.B.I. and learned A.G.A. opposed the quashing of the impugned orders.
After having heard the learned counsel for the parties present and perused the impugned order as well as the material brought on record, I am of the view that the impugned order is based upon relevant considerations and supported by cogent reasons, hence requires no interference by this Court. The prayer for quashing the same is hereby refused.
However, if the applicant surrender before the court below within three weeks from today and apply for bail, his bail application may be considered and decided by the court below expeditiously in accordance with law and also considering his ailments.
For a period of three weeks from today, non-bailable warrant issued against the applicant shall be kept in abeyance.
With the aforesaid observations, the application stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.7.2019 Shiraz