Allowed

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I

Allahabad HC26 Apr 2018BAIL/14560/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second bail application, the court examined the supplementary charge sheet which stated no evidence indicated the applicant attempted to contact public servants. The court held it to be a fit case for bail on grounds that the applicant was cooperating, had no criminal background, and risks were mitigated by bail conditions including passport surrender and surrender of weapon.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on personal bond of Rs.15 lakh and two solvent sureties subject to conditions of passport surrender, presence in court, and undertaking not to seek adjournments.

Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs C.B.I — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 10

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 14560 of 2018

¶3

Applicant :- Vinod Kumar Sharma Opposite Party :- C.B.I Counsel for Applicant :- Gunjan Jadwani,Amitabh Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Gyan Prakash

¶4

Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Anurag Khanna, learned Senior Counsel with Sri Amitabh Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Gyan Prakash, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the C.B.I.

¶6

This is second bail application. The earlier bail application was rejected by order dated 15 December 2017 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 45906 of 2017 along with connected matters.

¶7

This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant involved in FIR No. RC2172017A0010, under Section 120B IPC read with Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station SPE/CBI/ACU-V/New Delhi.

¶8

It is urged on behalf of the applicant that in the meantime, CBI has filed supplementary charge sheet dated 5 March 2018 under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C., wherein, it has been categorically stated that no evidence came on record during investigation that the accused attempted to contact any public servant in the Ministry or any other government servant with regard to the removal of debarment of World Medical College of Medical Science and Research and Hospital, Jhajjar, Haryana. Further, no evidence is available on record with regard to the involvement of any public servant or government servant on

¶9

whose behalf applicant demanded and accepted the money. It is contended that on the basis of supplementary charge sheet, learned Special Judge (CBI) by order dated 14 March 2018 discharged Smt. Ritu Singh, mother of Kunwar Nishant Singh. However, in respect of the applicant and other co-accused, the case under Section 120B IPC read with Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act has been said to be made out.

¶10

In this back drop, the learned counsel submits that applicant is in jail since 4 August 2017, he has no criminal background or antecedent and it is, further, contended that the ingredients of offence under Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out as is evident from the supplementary charge sheet. There is no evidence in the charge sheet to indicate that applicant had any knowledge of or any conversation with Kunwar Nishant Singh. Applicant is throughout cooperating with the Investigating Agency and there is no possibility of the applicant influencing or tampering with any evidence or witness.

¶11

Learned A.S.G.I. does not dispute that the supplementary charge sheet clearly states that there is no evidence to indicate involvement of any public servant or government servant on whose behalf the applicant demanded and accepted money, he submits that on raid, one crore in cash was recovered. In the counter affidavit filed by the CBI, it is nowhere contended or stated that on the applicant being enlarged on bail, there is likelihood of his tampering or adversely influencing any evidence or witness. The evidence against the applicant is primarily in electronic form and the witnesses are beyond influence.

¶12

Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case as recorded above, in my view, it is a fit case for bail.

¶13

Let the applicant- Vinod Kumar Sharma be released on bail in the above case on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.15/- lakh and two solvent sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of Court concerned subject to following additional conditions, which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶14

(i) The applicant shall surrender his passport with the trial judge during pendency of the trial;

¶15

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶16

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶17

(iv) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

(v) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of

¶19

liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

¶20

However, It is made clear that in case the applicant indulges in intimidating or threatening any witness, the CBI would be at liberty to file an application for cancellation of bail.

¶21

Order Date :- 26.4.2018 Mukesh Kr.

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vinod Kumar Sharma v. C.B.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Dhar Vs D.D.C. and Others

Surendra Nath Vs B.R.

Sanjay and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

Vaibhav Sharma Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Deepak@Deep Narayan Vs State of Up and Another

Ram Babu and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and Another