Allowed

Badri Kumar Shrestha v. Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

Allahabad HC22 May 2024BAIL/5543/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Misc. Bail Application was allowed. The Allahabad High Court granted bail to the applicant in a corruption case involving illegal tender participation, noting that several co-accused were already on bail, the charges lacked specific allegations, and the applicant had no criminal history.

What did the court decide?

Release on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties subject to standard conditions against tampering with evidence or witnesses.

Badri Kumar Shrestha vs Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru… — Corruption | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39628

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 5543 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Badri Kumar Shrestha Opposite Party :- Central Bureau Of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent Of Police Counsel for Applicant :- Nadeem Murtaza,Aditya Singh,Sheeran Mohiuddin Alavi

¶5

Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh

¶6

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶7

Heard Sri S.C. Mishra, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Prashasti Puri and Sri Aditya Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh and Sri Dharmedra Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent/CBI as well as perused the record.

¶8

By means of instant application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., the applicant is seeking his release on bail in Criminal Case No.815 of 2022 (CBI Vs. Roop Singh Yadav & Others), under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with substantive offences thereof arising out of Crime No. RC0062017A0026, registered with CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow and pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI, West, Lucknow.

¶9

The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an FIR lodged on 19.06.2017 against 8 persons, not including the applicant, alleging that a judicial enquiry held in respect of Gomti River Channelization and Gomti River Front Development, several illegalities come to light, regarding which it was decided to lodged an FIR. The FIR does not contain a specific allegation of commission of any offence, even by the persons named in it.

¶10

After investigation, the CBI submitted a chargesheet dated 15.02.2021 against five persons, including the applicant. Regarding the applicant, it has been stated in the chargesheet that he was working as the Senior Advisor to the Company M/s Brand Eagle Longjian JV illegally authorized his representative Mr. Shahid to purchase a tender document, even though Company was not registered with the Irrigation Department and was not eligible to participate in the tender process.

¶11

In the affidavit filed in support of the applications, it has been stated that the applicant is innocent, he has falsely been

¶12

implicated in the present case and has no criminal history

¶13

The learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that four co-accused persons have been granted bail. Coaccused Roop Singh Yadav has been granted bail by means of an order dated 20.02.2023 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 12932 of 2022. Co-accused Kavish Gupta has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court by means of an order dated 20.02.2023 passed in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 428 of 2023, which order was confirmed by means of an order dated 25.05.2023. Co-accused Himanshu Gupta, who is director of M/s. K.K. Spun Pipe Private Ltd., was granted anticipatory bail by means of an order dated 02.03.2023 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application u/s 438 Cr.P.C. No. 592 of 2023, which order was confirmed by means of an order dated 25.05.2023. Yet another co-accused person Raj Kumar Yadav has been granted bail by means of an order dated 05.04.2023 passed by this Court in Crl. Misc. Bail Application No. 3289 of 2023.

¶14

The learned counsel for the respondent/CBI has opposed the bail application and he has submitted that the applicant's anticipatory bail application was rejected by the Sessions Court by means of an order dated 11.10.2022. Anticipatory Bail Application No.2102 of 2022 filed by him was rejected by means of an order dated 15.12.2022 passed by this Court and his second anticipatory bail application no. 797 of 2023 was rejected by this Court by means of an order dated 04.04.2023 but the applicant did not cooperate with the proceedings.

¶15

Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the fact that the applicant was acting as an advisor to the Company and in the aforesaid capacity he had authorized a person to purchase the tender document for a company which was not registered with the Irrigation Department; that the tender allegedly purchased without authorization had not been accepted and the contract has not been granted to that Company; that four co-accused persons have already been granted bail, whereas the applicant is languishing in jail since 07.05.2024 and that the applicant has no criminal history, I am of the view that the applicant is also entitled to be released on bail.

¶16

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

¶17

Let the applicant- Badri Kumar Shrestha be released on bail in Criminal Case No.815 of 2022 (CBI Vs. Roop Singh Yadav & Others), under Sections 120-B r/w 420, 467, 468, 471

¶18

of IPC and Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with substantive offences thereof arisen out of Crime No. RC0062017A0026, registered with CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Lucknow and pending before the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption CBI, West, Lucknow on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of magistrate/court concerned, subject to following conditions:-

¶19

(i) the applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence;

¶20

(ii) the applicant shall not pressurize the prosecution witnesses;

¶21

(iii) the applicant shall appear on each and every date fixed by the trial court.

¶22

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

¶23

[Subhash Vidyarthi,J.]

¶24

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 kkv/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- KRISHAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Badri Kumar Shrestha v. Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Badri Kumar Shrestha v. Central Bureau of Invetigation Thru. Its Superitendent of Police

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kudrat Ali Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Chitra Misra and 13 Others Vs M/S Decathlon Sports India Private Ltd. Thru. Managing Director and Another

Asheer Ahmad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko.

Vimal Kishore and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and Others

Zuber Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko.

Sunita Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.