Remanded

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian v. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko.

Allahabad HC16 Feb 2024ABAIL/292/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Anticipatory bail application listed based on office report claiming prior decision by the same judge in a related matter. The court held the prior order merely relegated the applicant to the Session Court without deciding merits, thus failing to trigger the roster rule for senior-most judge listing. Matter remitted for listing before the appropriate court.

What the court decided

AI extract

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian vs Central Bureau of Investigation… — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 292 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Mukesh Kumar Tulsian Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Hemant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶5

1. Heard.

¶6

2. On the first date of admission dated 16.02.2024, this Court has passed the following order:-

¶7

"1. Heard Sri Himanshu Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Akhilendra Singh holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party.

¶8

2. This is an anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

¶9

3. I am not sitting in the roster dealing with the anticipatory bail application. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that I have not decided any anticipatory bail application in the same crime case. Learned counsel has pressed urgency in the matter, therefore, list in the next week, in the list of fresh cases, before the appropriate Court."

¶10

3. This case has again been listed before me with the office reports dated 20.02.2024 and 21.02.2024, which read as under:-

¶11

" 20.02.2024: Office Report:

¶12

In compliance of order dated 16.02.2024, it is submitted that as per CIS status (Copy enclosed), different bail applications arising out of present case crime number have been found.

¶13

Therefore, in the light of Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice order dated 31.01.2024, present bail is put up before this Hon'ble Court (Senior Most available Hon'ble Judge deciding any of the bail application).

¶14

Sd/

¶15

20.02.2024

¶16

21.02.2024: Office Report:

¶17

In compliance of office report dated 20.02.2024, it is added that as per CIS status, one bail application bearing No.A-Bail 100 of 2023 is decided by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. vide order dated 16.01.2023.

¶18

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J. is Senior most Hon'ble Judge among Hon'ble Judges deciding any of the bail application arising out of present case crime number.

¶19

Therefore, as per Ho'ble the Acting Chief Justice order dated 31.01.2024, present bail is put up before this Hon'ble Court.

¶20

Sd/

¶21

21.02.2024"

¶22

4. Along with the aforesaid reports, the photocopy of the Administrative order dated 31.01.2024 being passed by the Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice has been enclosed showing Point No.5 thereof, to say that in terms of the aforesaid Point No.5 this Anticipatory Bail has been listed before me. Point No.5 of the order dated 31.01.2024 reads as under:-

¶23

"5. If any of such cases have been decided by different Hon'ble Judges, then newly instituted cases shall be listed before the Senior most available Hon'ble Judge who has decided any of the case arising out of same case crime number/FIR. If Hon'ble Judge is sitting in Division Bench then cases shall be listed manually before the same Bench."

¶24

5. In the office report dated 21.02.2024, the reference of A-Bail Application No.100 of 2023: Ramji Singh vs. State of U.P. has been given to say that the said Bail Application has been decided by me. The order dated 16.01.2023 passed in A-Bail Application No.100 of 2023; Ramji Singh vs. State of U.P.; reads as under:-

¶25

"Heard Sri Purnendu Chakravarty, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Dharmendra Pratap Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

¶26

By means of this anticipatory bail application, the present applicant (Ramji Singh) has prayed for granting anticipatory bail in Criminal Case No.07 of 2012, FIR/ Crime No.RC0062011A0005 dated 13.04.2011, under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468 & 471 I.P.C. and Section 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station-CBI/ ACB, District-Lucknow.

¶27

At the very outset, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has raised objection regarding maintainability of this anticipatory bail application before this Court by submitting that the applicant has directly approached this Court whereas he should have first approached the learned Sessions Court by filing anticipatory bail application. It is also stated that in view of the judgment of Full Bench of this Court rendered in re: Ankit Bharti vs. State of U.P. reported in (2020) (3) ADJ 165 (F.B.), the special reasons should have been indicated by approaching this Court instead of approaching the learned Sessions Court.

¶28

However, on that, Sri Chakravarty has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by this Court at Allahabad in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application (U/S 438 Cr.P.C.) No.3608 of 2022 (Ramji Singh vs. Central Bureau of Investigation) giving liberty to the present applicant to file anticipatory bail application before this Court at Lucknow within seven days by providing that till that period no coercive action shall be taken against the present applicant. The order dated 05.01.2023 reads as under:-

¶29

"1. Sri Anurag Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant submits that since the cases are being tied up at Lucknow, he would like to withdraw this application and file the said application before the Lucknow Bench of this Court.

¶30

2. Sri Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the C.B.I. has no objection to the said prayer.

¶31

3. Therefore, the present application is dismissed with liberty to file the same before the Lucknow Bench of this Court within a period of seven days from today.

¶32

4. For a period of seven days, no coercive measure to be taken against the applicant in Crime No. RC0062011A0004, (CBI Vs. Pawan Kumar and Others), under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, Police Station CBI/ACB Lucknow."

¶33

Having considered the decision of Full Bench of this Court rendered in re: Ankit Bharti (supra), a liberty is given to the present applicant to file his anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Court within a period of one week from today and if such anticipatory bail application is filed by the present applicant before the learned Sessions Court, the same shall be considered and disposed of with expedition, strictly in accordance with law, without giving unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

¶34

For the period of seven days, no coercive measures shall be taken against the present applicant.

¶35

However, the present applicant may file his anticipatory bail application before this Court after the final disposal of his anticipatory bail application by the learned Sessions Court, if he is so advised.

¶36

Accordingly, the instant anticipatory bail application is disposed of."

¶37

6. By careful perusal of the aforesaid orders and office reports, prima-facie, it appears that the office has not properly taken into account para No.5 of the order being passed by the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice, wherein it has been categorically indicated that if any matter/ case in a criminal matter has been decided by any Judge, the matter having same Crime Number/ F.I.R. shall be listed before the same court. The order dated 16.01.2023 in re: A-Bail Application No.100 of 2023 (supra) was passed relegating the matter to the Session Court to file anticipatory bail application and merits of the case had not been

¶38

touched.

¶39

7. Since the aforesaid order was passed on objection being raised regarding the maintainability of the bail application so raised by learned counsel for the C.B.I. to the effect that instead of approaching the learned Session Court the petitioner has directly approached this Court by filing anticipatory bail application and on such objection the matter was relegated to the Session Court, therefore, the order dated 16.01.2023 would not be treated as if the anticipatory bail application has been decided on merit and any order relegating the matter to the appropriate court may not be considered that lis has been decided by the court concerned.

¶40

8. Further, when the counsel for both the parties had stated on 16.02.2024 that any anticipatory bail application in the same crime case has not been decided by me then before sending the matter before this Court after order dated 16.02.2024, office should peruse the order dated 16.01.2023 passed in re: A-Bail Application No.100 of 2023 (supra) carefully.

¶41

9. Instead of seeking explanation from the office as to how office has given note to the effect that lis in the same Crime Number / F.I.R. has been decided by me in A-Bail Application No.100 of 2023, I hereby direct that the matter be placed before appropriate court in the list of fresh cases in the next week and if need be, the paper-book may be put up before Hon'ble the Chief Justice/ Senior Judge within 24 hours seeking appropriate order.

¶42

[Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.]

¶43

Order Date :- 23.2.2024 Suresh/

¶44

Digitally signed by :- SURESH CHANDRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian v. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Mukesh Kumar Tulsian v. Central Bureau of Investigation Anti Corrupt. Branch Lko.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Bajpai vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Prema Devi and Another vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Sultanpur and Others

Kalim vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pawan Kumar Alias Pawan Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Govt. Civil Sectt. Lko and Another

Anwarul Haque Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Niyaz Amhmad and 8 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another