Bedram Sharma and Another Vs Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / AC-1, New Delhi and Others

¶1

1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66623

¶3

Reserved

¶4

Court No. - 17

¶5

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2085 of 2022 Applicant :- Bedram Sharma And Another Opposite Party :- Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / Ac-1, New Delhi And Others

¶6

Counsel for Applicant :- Purnendu Chakravarty,Anuuj Taandon,Pranjal Jain,Purnendu Chakravarty

¶7

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶8

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶9

Heard Shri S.C. Mishra, Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, Special Counsel for CBI appearing for respondents.

¶10

Present application has been filed with the prayer to summon and prosecute the respondents for willful and deliberate defiance of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the notice of appearance in terms of Section 41A of Cr.P.C was issued with the direction to the applicants to appear in the office of the respondents on 11.09.2020 in pursuance of FIR/Case No.RC 2162022A0012 dated 10.09.2022 under Section 120B IPC and Section 7,8, 9, 10 and 12 of PC Act, 1988 at CBI AC-1, New Delhi. After receiving the notice, applicants appeared in the office of respondents in the afternoon of 11.09.2022 and their statements were recorded, in which, they stated all facts and information within their knowledge. He next submits that after recording the statement of applicants, they were taken into custody by the respondents which is utter violation of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.

¶12

Paragraph no.11.2 and 11.3 of the judgment passed in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) is reproduced as under:

¶13

2

¶14

11.2 All the police officials be prepared with the check-list containing specified sub-clauses under Section 41(1)(b)(ii).

¶15

11.3 All the police officers shall forward the check-list duly filed and furnish the reasons and materials which necessitated the arrest, while forwarding/producing the accused before the Magistrate for further detention.

¶16

Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in normal circumstances, the accused should not be arrested for the offence which is punishable only upto seven years whether with or without fine but in the present case, the applicants were taken into custody even when the alleged offences are punishable for less than seven years. He further submits that no satisfactory reasons were placed before the Magistrate for the arrest of the applicants in the present case which is a clear violation of the law laid down by the Honb’le Supreme Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar (supra) as well as Section 41A of Cr.P.C. He next submits that Hon’ble Supreme Court also observed that in case of failure to comply with the directions, the concerned police officer shall be liable for departmental action as well as proceeding of Contempt of Courts Act, therefore, respondents should be summoned and punished accordingly.

¶17

Shri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there was an input to the Central Bureu of Investigation (for short “CBI”) that some officers of National Highway Authority of India (for short “NHAI”) are involved in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with certain representatives of the private companies working with NHAI for issuance of completion certificate, passing of bills, smooth probation of awarded workers, etc. On the basis of aforesaid input, action was initiated by the CBI, thereafter, the FIR in question was lodged and the applicants were called for interrogation but they were not properly cooperating, as a result, custodial interrogation was requested and the permission was granted by the Magistrate to take the applicants in police remand on 12.09.2022. In such circumstances, the respondent officers have not violated any direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court as they discharged their duty bona fidely in the national

¶18

3

¶19

interest, therefore, the present application is misconceived and liable to be dismissed.

¶20

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, going through the contents of contempt applications as well as other relevant documents, it is evident from the record that on the basis of some input of the CBI, surveillance was initiated, and thereafter, FIR was lodged with the allegation that some officials of NHAI are indulging in corrupt and illegal activities in connivance with certain private persons associated with the private companies working in the NHAI projects for constructions of double lane with pave shoulders of Sitarganj-Bareili Sections, etc. Thereafter, notice under Section 41A of Cr.P.C. was issued to the applicants and they were called for interrogation on 11.09.2020 but when they failed to cooperate in the investigation then they were taken into custody and placed before the Magistrate. On the next date, police remand was also requested which was allowed. In such circumstances, this Court is of the view that respondent officers have done their official duty without violating any guidelines of Hon’ble Supreme Court, thus, no contempt is made out against them.

¶21

Accordingly, The present contempt application is hereby dismissed.

¶22

Consigned to record.

¶23

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 V. Sinha

¶24

Digitally signed by :- VAISHALI SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Bedram Sharma and Another v. Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / AC-1, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bedram Sharma and Another v. Ravindra Kumar, Inspector / I.O., C.B.I. / AC-1, New Delhi and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Manju Vs Indrajeet Singh, Nagar Ayukt Municipal Commissioner, Nagar Nigam Lko.

Smt. Sufia Bano Vs Smt. Monika S. Garg Prin. Secy. Minorities Welfar Lko. and Others

Babban Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko

Kishan and 2 Others vs the State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy. Nagar Vikas and 3 Others

Mridulika Asthana vs Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences Lko. Thru. Its Director and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addil. Chief Secy. Home Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko. and Another