Allowed

Aditya Awasthi v. C.B.I

Allahabad HC5 May 2023BAIL/17139/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bail applications by Aditya Awasthi and Shiv Dayal Sharma in a corruption case were allowed as the acid test under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not met based on hearsay evidence, establishing prima facie innocence. The High Court imposed specific conditions for future appearances.

What did the court decide?

Applicants released on bail with a personal bond and two sureties, subject to conditions regarding attendance, no adjournment for evidence, and consequences for abuse of bail.

Aditya Awasthi Vs C.B.I — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:103390

¶2

Court No. - 49

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 17139 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Aditya Awasthi Opposite Party :- C.B.I Counsel for Applicant :- Tejasvi Misra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶5

With

¶6

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 16263 of 2023

¶7

Applicant :- Shiv Dayal Sharma Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Counsel for Applicant :- Tejasvi Misra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- Sanjay Kumar Yadav

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶9

Heard Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tejasvi Misra, the learned counsel for applicants and Mr. Gyan Prakash, the Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I.

¶10

Perused the record.

¶11

Aforementioned Bail Applications arise out of the same case crime number. Consequently, they were connected vide order dated 17.04.2023. As a result, both the applications have been heard together and are now being disposed of by a common order.

¶12

Record shows that an FIR dated 20.02.2023 was lodged against applicants and was registered as FIR No. 2182023A0003/AC-III, under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC, Police Station-C.B.I. ACIII, New Delhi. In the aforesaid FIR, 6 persons have been nominated as named accused whereas some unknown public servants and private persons have also been arraigned as accused.

¶13

The gravamen of the allegations made in the FIR is that

¶14

information was received that bribe was given to Mukesh Kumar, Deputy Chief Signal and Telecom Engineer (Construction) T.R.M. Office Campus Division, North Central Railway.

¶15

Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel for applicants contends that from the perusal of the recital contained under the heading "information" which is part of the FIR giving rise to present application for bail, it is evident that the criminal proceedings have been initiated against applicants on the basis of hearsay evidence. The applicants are alleged to have committed an offence under Sections 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 read with Section 120B IPC. In the light of above, he contends that in order to evoke Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the acid test of demand and acceptance as explained by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2022 OnLine SC 1724 is not satisfied in the present case up to this stage. He also submits that once the provisions of Section 7 of the P.C. Act are not satisfied, the applicants cannot be implicated under other charging sections of the P.C. Act.

¶16

According to the learned Senior Counsel, conspiracy is a closed door affair and therefore, the same is subject to trial evidence. As per the material on record, it cannot be conclusively concluded that applicants have conspired in the commission of the alleged crime. The applicants are the Managing Director/Direction of the company namely M/s Shivakriti Internation Ltd. Office at 707710, 7th Floor, Corporate Park, Gopalbari, Ajmer Pulia Jaipur, Rajasthan but except for above, there is not other material on record to establish the alleged guilt of applicants up to this stage.

¶17

Even otherwise, applicants are men of clean antecedents inasmuch as, they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one. In case, applicants are enlarged on bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall co-operate with the trial.

¶18

Per contra, Mr. Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I. have opposed the present application for bail. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submission urged by the learned Senior Counsel for applicants with reference to the record at this stage.

¶19

Having heard, Mr. G.S. Chaturvedi, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Tejasvi Misra, the learned counsel for applicants, Mr. Gyan Prakash, Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of

¶20

India assisted by Mr. Sanjay Yadav, the learned counsel representing opposite party-1 i.e. C.B.I. and upon perusal of material brought on record, the complicity of applicants and accusations made coupled with the fact that except for hearsay evidence, there is no other evidence against applicants up to this stage, prima-facie, the acid test required to be satisfied for invoking the provisions of Section 7 P.C. Act as explained by the Constitution Bench referred to above being not satisfied, conspiracy being a closed door affair and therefore subject to trial evidence, applicants being men of clean antecedents inasmuch as they have no criminal history to their credit except the present one, but without making any comment on the merits of the case, applicants have made out a case for bail.

¶21

Accordingly, the bail applications are allowed .

¶22

Let the applicants, Aditya Awasthi and Shiv Dayal Sharma 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 court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

¶23

(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.

¶24

(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.

¶25

(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.

¶26

(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

¶27

THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.

¶28

(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 APPLICANT.

¶29

However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicants, shall have serious repercussion on their 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.

¶30

Order Date :- 5.5.2023 Vinay

¶31

Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aditya Awasthi v. C.B.I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aditya Awasthi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Himanshu Kumar Vs State of U.P.

Mahabir Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

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

Sanjay Kumar Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Rajeev Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another

Arshad Jamal Vs State of U.P and Another