Allowed

Rajendra Krishna Johri v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Allahabad HC2 May 2023BAIL/12522/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail application filed during the pendency of a trial involving corruption and conspiracy charges, the High Court allowed the applicant's bail. The Court observed that several co-accused had already been granted bail and there were no distinguishing features to deny relief to the applicant, noting that the charge sheet was submitted and prosecution evidence was synchronized.

What did the court decide?

Applicant released on bail on personal bond and two heavy sureties subject to specific conditions regarding court attendance and evidence proceedings.

Rajendra Krishna Johri Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Bail and Remand | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 49

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 12522 of 2023

¶3

Applicant :- Rajendra Krishna Johri Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Counsel for Applicant :- Shiv Sagar Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶4

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶5

Heard the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party 1 i.e. CBI.

¶6

2. Perused the record.

¶7

This application for bail has been filed by applicant-Rajendra Krishna Johri seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. RC/DST/2015/A/0004 dated 30.07.2015, under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-STF, CBI, New Delhi during the pendendy of trial.

¶8

Record shows that an FIR dated 30.07.2015 was registered by the CBI, pursuant to the order dated 16.07.2015 passed by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No. 12396 of 2014 (Dr. Nutan Thakur Vs. State Of U.P. Thoru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Ors.) which was registered as Case Crime No. RC/DST/2015/A/0004 dated 30.07.2015, under Sections 120B IPC read with Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 469, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station-STF, CBI, New Delhi. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons namely -

¶9

(1) Shri Yadav Singh, the then CME, NOIDA,

¶10

(2) Shri Javed Ahmed, Proprietor, M/s Gul Engineers Co.

¶11

(3). Shri Sai Raju, Shri Manish Kumar and Shri Prem Pradeep, Directors, M/s SMP Technologh Pvt. Ltd.,

¶12

(4) Shri Kumar Saurav and Shri Prem Pradeep, Directors, M/s Abu Infracon Pvt. Ltd.,

¶13

(5) Shri Sanjay Kumar Gupta, Proprietor, M/s Sanjay Electricals,

¶14

(6) Shri Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Proprietor, M/s Shakambari Projects, Ranchi,

¶15

have been nominated as named accused. Certain unknown officers/officials of NOIDA Authority and other private persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶16

At the very outset, the learned counsel for applicant contends that (applicant) is innocent. Applicant is not named in the FIR.

¶17

It is next contended that six accused have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court. The details of the same are as under:-

¶18

(1). Order dated 26.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 12363 of 2021 (Sushil Kumar Gupta Vs. C.B.I.) (Disposed of),

¶19

(2). Order dated 26.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11909 of 2021 (Deepak Kumar Vs. C.B.I.) (Interim Order),

¶20

(3). Order dated 2605.08.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 11618 of 2021 (Sant Ram Vs. C.B.I.) (Interim Order),

¶21

(4). Order dated 08.09.2020 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 5579 of 2020 (Amar Chand Singh Vs. C.B.I.) (Interim Order),

¶22

(5). Order dated 06.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 6906 of 2020 (S.K. Srivastava Vs. C.B.I.) (Interim Order),

¶23

(6). Order dated 06.05.2021 passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8184 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. C.B.I.) (Interim Order).

¶24

He further submits that few of the accused have granted the benefit of bail by the Supreme Court, the details of the same are as under:-

¶25

(1). Order dated 03.02.2023 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leawve to apeal (Crl.) No(s). 11208 of 2022 (Rakesh Kumar Jain Vs. C.B.I.),

¶26

(2). Order dated 03.03.2023 passed in Petition(s) for Special Leawve to apeal (Crl.) No(s). 2651 of 2023 (Devendra Kumar Gangal Vs. C.B.I.).

¶27

On the above premise, it is contended by the learned counsel for applicant that case of present applicant is on better footing than some of the accused who have been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail/bail. There is no such distinguishing feature on the basis of which case of present applicant could be so distinguished so as to deny him the benefit of bail. On the above premise, he contends that in view of above and for the facts and reasons recorded in the bail orders of co-accused detailed above, applicant is also liable to be enlarged on bail. Applicant is in custody since 08.02.2023, As such, he has undergone 2 months of incarceration. In case, applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial. The charge sheet has already been submitted. As such, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant stands synchronized. However, up to this stage, no such circumstance has emerged necessitating the custodial arrest of applicant during the pendency of trial. To buttress his submission, he has referred to the judgment of Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2023

¶28

LiveLaw (SC) 373. On the cumulative strength of above, he, therefore, contends that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail.

¶29

Per contra, Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel representing C.B.I. has opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.

¶30

Having heard, the learned counsel for applicant, the learned counsel representing CBI and upon perusal of record, evidence, accusations made, complicity of applicant and coupled with the fact that 6 of the accused have already been granted the benefit of anticipatory bail by this Court, 2 of the accused have been granted bail by the Supreme Court, there being no such distinguishing feature in the case of present applicant so as to distinguish his case from other co-accused and deny him the benefit of bail, the charge sheet having been submitted, therefore, the evidence sought to be relied upon by the prosecution against applicant now stands synchronized, there being nothing on record to indicate that custodial arrest of applicant is absolutely necessary during the pendency of trial, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal (Supra), the period of incarceration undergone by applicant, the clean antecedents of the applicant but witout making any comments on the merits of the case, applicant has made out a case for bail.

¶31

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶32

Let the applicant-Rajendra Krishna Johri, be released on bail in aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the

¶33

court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶34

(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE 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.

¶35

(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.

¶36

(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

¶37

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3) 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 LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶38

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE

¶39

APPLICANT.

¶40

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his bail so granted by this Court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.

¶41

Order Date :- 2.5.2023 Imtiyaz

¶42

Digitally signed by :- IMTIYAZ AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Rajendra Krishna Johri v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Krishna Johri v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Toyaj Tripathi Vs State of U.P.

Sanjay Sagar Vs State of U.P. thr. Prin. Secy. (Home) Govt. of U.P. and Anr.

Dinesh Upadhyay Vs State of U.P.

Mohd. Husain Vs State of U.P. and Another

Prashant Verma Vs State of U.P.

Dr. Vishnu Rai @ Vishnu Rai Vs State of U.P. and Another