Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Writ - C No. - 62167 of 2017

Attorney(S)

- Shiv Sagar Singh
- A.S.G.I., Amit Misra

Judges

Ramesh Sinha
Vivek Kumar Singh, JJ.

Acts

Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I/STF, New Delhi
Sections Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988,
provision of Section 88 Cr.P.C
Section 88 of Cr.P.C,
Section 82/83 Cr.P.C
Section 439 Cr.P.C
Section 89 Cr.P.C,
Section 88 Cr.P.C

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary: Ramesh Sinha, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner challenged the use of the word "may" in Section 88 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) as unconstitutional and alternatively sought that it be read down to require mandatory release on bond in appropriate circumstances. The petitioner faced trial in Case No. 3 of 2017 (State v. Yadav Singh) with a chargesheet and supplementary chargesheet filed by the C.B.I. alleging offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 IPC read with Sections 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Non-bailable warrants (NBW) were issued against the petitioner when he failed to appear; the petitioner obtained interim relief from a coordinate bench of the High Court (which stayed NBW for two weeks on his undertaking), and approached the Apex Court twice by Special Leave Petitions (SLPs). The petitioner ultimately appeared before the trial court on 7.12.2017 and applied to be released on furnishing bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. The trial court rejected that application and remanded the petitioner to judicial custody by order dated 7.12.2017. The petitioner challenged the trial court's order and also the vires of Section 88 Cr.P.C. before the High Court by the present writ petition.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the use of the word "may" in Section 88 Cr.P.C. is unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra vires Articles 14 and 21 (and whether it should be read down to "shall") so as to make release on personal bond mandatory in circumstances such as the present.
Whether the trial Court erred in refusing to permit the petitioner to furnish bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C. and in remanding him to judicial custody by order dated 7.12.2017.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The word "may" in Section 88 Cr.P.C. should be read as "shall" in the facts of this case; otherwise the provision is open to challenge under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
The petitioner voluntarily surrendered, cooperated with investigation, was not arrested by the investigating agency and had only been issued summons; therefore the trial court was obliged to release him on furnishing bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C.
The petitioner offered an undertaking to appear on all dates and acknowledged the trial court's power to arrest under Section 89 Cr.P.C. in case of breach of bond.
The trial court wrongly treated Section 88 as discretionary rather than mandatory and failed to consider various precedents relied upon by the petitioner that, he contended, supported his position.
Reliance was placed upon several judgments (including Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar; State of U.P v. Jogendra Singh; Vishwa Nath Jiloka v. Ist Munsif; Sanjay Chaturvedi v. State; and Arun Sharma v. Union of India) to support the contention that release was warranted.

Respondent's (C.B.I./Union of India) Arguments

The petitioner's challenge to the constitutionality of the word "may" in Section 88 Cr.P.C. is misconceived and contrary to settled law of the Apex Court and various High Courts; Section 88 confers discretionary power on courts.
The gravity of the alleged offences (a multi-crore fraud causing significant loss to the State Exchequer) and the conduct of the petitioner—particularly his failure to appear despite earlier undertakings and repeated proceedings—justify the trial court's refusal to release him on bond.
The petitioner had earlier challenged the charge sheet and other proceedings; on at least one earlier occasion an SLP was dismissed/withdrawn with liberty to apply for bail but the petitioner did not apply as required; NBWs were issued when he failed to appear.
Many cited precedents relied upon by the petitioner are distinguishable, often relating to complaint cases, and do not apply to the present facts.
The petitioner has remedies available under Section 439 Cr.P.C. (regular bail) and the trial court correctly exercised discretion; the impugned order should not be interfered with.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, AIR 1963 SC 1088	Cited by petitioner in support of argument that Section 88 should be read so as to favour release (i.e., to treat "may" as directing release in appropriate cases).	The court noted the precedent was relied upon by petitioner but concluded that the authorities relied upon (including this) were distinguishable on facts and did not support mandatory release in the present multi‑crore fraud case.
State of U.P. v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618	Cited by petitioner to support the contention that release under provisions analogous to Section 88 may be required in certain circumstances.	The court held the precedent to be distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present case; it was categorized among authorities relating to complaint cases.
Vishwa Nath Jiloka v. Ist Munsif Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich, 1989 Cri. LJ 2082	Cited by petitioner as supportive authority for release on bond under circumstances similar to those the petitioner urged.	The court found this authority distinguishable (relating to complaint cases) and therefore not controlling in the present matter involving serious corruption allegations and an accused who had failed to appear.
Sanjay Chaturvedi v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 692	Cited by petitioner to support release on bond/interpretation favorable to accused.	The court observed the case was distinguishable from the present facts and did not require interference with the trial court's discretionary refusal to accept a bond.
Arun Sharma v. Union of India, CRWP No. 971 of 2016 (Punjab & Haryana HC)	Cited by petitioner among authorities supporting the relief sought.	The court did not accept that reliance on these authorities warranted interference and treated the precedents as distinguishable in the context of the present case.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the chronology and procedural history in detail: the initial charge sheet (15.3.2016), cognizance (29.3.2016), supplementary charge sheet (31.5.2017), issuance of NBW (7.6.2017) when the petitioner failed to appear, earlier High Court and Apex Court proceedings (including a stay of NBW for two weeks on undertaking and subsequent SLPs), and the petitioner's surrender/appearance before the trial court on 7.12.2017 when he applied for release on bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C.

On the primary legal question, the court held that a plain reading of Section 88 Cr.P.C. shows the provision confers discretion upon the trial court to release a person on his furnishing personal bond. The contention that the word "may" is mandatory (i.e., should be read as "shall") was rejected as unsustainable. The court emphasized that discretion under Section 88 is to be exercised in light of the facts and circumstances of each case.

The court placed significant weight on the petitioner's conduct: despite undertakings before the High Court and the Apex Court and earlier opportunities, the petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the trial court, which led to proceedings under Sections 82/83 Cr.P.C. and the issuance of NBW. The court observed that the petitioner had previously challenged the charge sheet and later withdrew an SLP with liberty to apply for bail but did not follow that route; the court found that the petitioner had misused the process of law and had not disclosed earlier filings to the Apex Court.

Regarding precedents relied upon by the petitioner, the court held those authorities to be distinguishable on facts — many related to complaint cases — and therefore not persuasive for ordering release on bond in a case concerning a serious multi‑crore fraud. Given the gravity of the alleged offences and the petitioner's conduct, the trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing to accept a bond was held to be justified.

The court also noted that the petitioner has an available remedy to seek regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C., which would be decided by the trial court in accordance with law.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is DISMISSED.

Implications:

The High Court declined to declare the use of the word "may" in Section 88 Cr.P.C. unconstitutional or to read it down to "shall." The court affirmed that Section 88 confers discretion on the trial court to release a person on personal bond and that such discretion was rightly exercised in the present case.
The trial court's order dated 7.12.2017 declining to accept the petitioner's bond and remanding him to judicial custody remains undisturbed by this judgment.
The petitioner remains at liberty to pursue ordinary remedies available in the criminal process (for example, applying for regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.).
The court did not treat this decision as establishing any new legal principle altering the settled understanding that Section 88 is discretionary; the court found the authorities relied upon by the petitioner to be distinguishable and therefore did not set a broader precedent changing the statutory interpretation of Section 88.

This summary is confined strictly to the contents of the provided opinion and does not add or infer facts beyond that text.

Show full summary ...

Pankaj Jain Petitioner v. Union Of India And Another S

Ramesh Sinha, J.:— Sri. Sabhajeet Singh, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of Union of India today in Court, which is taken on record.

2. Heard Sri. Vikram Chaudhary, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri. Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. Sabhajeet Singh, learned counsel for Union of India, Sri. Amit Misra, learned counsel for the C.B.I and perused the material on record.

3. This writ petition has been filed by by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, declaring in the above context, the use of word ‘may’ in Section 88 of Cr.P.C as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra-vires of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12 & 21 of the Constitution of India or in the alternative to read it down by expounding, deliberating and delineating its scope in the context, to save Section 88 from unconstitutionality on the vice of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. A further prayer has also been made in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the trial Court, i.e, Special Judge for Anti Corruption C.B.I cases at Ghaziabad, with consequential relief of setting the petitioner at liberty by permitting him to furnish his Bonds under Section 88 of Cr.P.C to the satisfaction of the said Trial Court in R.C No. RC/DST/2015.A/0004.CBI/STF/DLI dated 30.7.2015

4. The brief facts as emerges from the record is that; the petitioner is facing trial in the Case No. 3 of 2017 (State v. Yadav Singh) and charge sheet has been submitted against him for the offences under Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station C.B.I/STF, New Delhi and petitioner had challenged the charge sheet being No. 6 of 2017 dated 31.5.2017, arising out of Case Crime No. 4(A) of 2015 submitted by the C.B.I under Sections Sections 120B, 420, 468, 471 I.P.C read with Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, pending before the Special Judge, C.B.I, Ghaziabad in which NBW were issued against the applicant and Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 18849 of 2017 vide order 6.7.2017 refused to quash the proceedings pending before the trial Court and it was observed that the Court was not inclined to interfere at initial stage of the proceedings, but on the request of learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant would appear before the trial Court within two weeks and in the meantime NBW be stayed, considering the said prayer the Court directed the applicant to appear before the trial Court within two weeks which was directed to be disposed of expeditiously in accordance with law considering the direction of this Court as well as Apex Court and in the meantime the effect and operation of the NBW was directed to be kept in abeyance. Being aggrieved by the said order order dated 6.7.2017, the petitioner approached the Apex Court and filed SLP No. 7749 of 2017 and on 24.11.2017 the Apex Court affirmed the said order dated 6.7.2017 passed by the High Court and and considered the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner who confined his prayer only to the issuance of the NBW against the petitioner and while considering the said argument of learned counsel for the petitioner, the Apex Court found that the petitioner had earlier made similar request before the High Court that the petitioner would appear before the Special Judge, C.B.I, within two weeks to apply for regular bail and on the basis of the said statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner before it the High Court stayed the NBW issued against the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court and had again approached the Apex Court and after considering the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner against issuance of the NBW, the Apex Court further granted two weeks' time to the petitioner to apply for bail before the Special Judge C.B.I with the direction to the trial Court to consider the bail application of the petitioner forthwith and the said SLP stands disposed of vide order dated 24.11.2017 accordingly with liberty to the petitioner to raise all the contentions before the High Court which are available to him under law.

5. The applicant moved an application before the trial Court as paper No. 14Kha on 7.12.2017 in the aforesaid case, i.e, Special Case No. 10A of 2016 (Pankaj Jain v. C.B.I), wherein he has made a plea to permit him to furnish bond as may be deem fit under the provision of Section 88 Cr.P.C in the aforesaid case without sending him to any prison, a copy of the said application is annexed as Annexure-12 to the writ petition.

6. The trial Court rejected the said application of the petitioner by the impugned order dated 7.12.2017 and has sent the petitioner in judicial custody.

7. After the said application was rejected, the petitioner further filed an application, i.e, paper no. 104Kha that the order dated 7.12.2017 declining the prayer of the petitioner to furnish bond under Section 88 Cr.P.C may be kept in abeyance for a period of one week with an undertaking that the petitioner would appear on the date as may be specified, which too was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 7.12.2017, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

8. Against the said order dated 7.12.2017 passed by the trial Court, the petitioner again approached the Apex Court and filed SLP (Crl.) No. 9764 of 2017 and on 15.12.2017 the Apex Court has disposed of the said SLP (Crl.) on the ground that the petitioner may challenge the aforesaid order before this Court as the same was passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I and the petition so filed be decided by this Court expeditiously, hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner.

9. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that though the charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner along with other co-accused persons on 15.3.2016 and cognizance of the offence was taken against him on 29.4.2016 and thereafter a supplementary charge sheet was submitted against him along with other co-accused persons on 31.5.2017 and while the cognizance being taken on the same, NBW were issued against against him along with other co-accused before the trial Court on 7.6.2017 He further submitted that when the petitioner had appeared before the trial Court on 7.12.2017 then it was under an obligation to release the applicant on furnishing bond in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C as he had cooperated in the investigation process and was not arrested by the Investigating Agency and the trial Court had only issued summons against him and C.B.I had not prayed for his arrest. He next argued that as the applicant had voluntarily appeared before the trial Court and further showed his willingness to furnish bail bond along with an undertaking to appear on every date while acknowledging power of the trial Court to arrest him under Section 89 Cr.P.C, in case of any breach of such bond. The trial Court however declined to accept his prayer contrary to Section 88 of Cr.P.C, by erroneously construing it ‘discretionary’ but not ‘mandatory’, without dealing with any of the various precedents relied upon by the petitioner which was applicable in the present case. He further argued that in the above context, the work “may” in Section 88 Cr.P.C shall be read with as “shall”. If it is not so read, in the context and circumstances as arising in the instant case in respect of the present petitioner and similarly placed co-accused persons, the provision would suffer from unconstitutionality on the vice of Article 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India.

10. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar, 1963, AIR 1963 SC 1088, State of U.P v. Jogendra Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1618, Vishwa Nath Jiloka. v. Ist Munsif Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich, 1989 Cri. LJ 2082, Sanjay Chaturvedi v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 692 and judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Arun Sharma v. Union of India, CRWP No. 971 of 2016.

11. He further argued that the trial Court did not consider the said judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that in view of the above, the impugned order passed by the trial Court be set aside and the petitioner be set at liberty.

12. Per contra, learned counsel for the CBI has vehemently opposed the argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that so far as the first prayer is concerned for declaring the the use of word ‘may’ in Section 88 of Cr.P.C as unconstitutional, manifestly arbitrary, unreasonable and ultra-vires of the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 12 & 21 of the Constitution of India is wholly misconceived and is liable to be dismissed in view of the settled proposition of law of the Apex Court as well as of the various other High Courts. He further submitted that the petitioner who is former Directors of M/s. JSP Projects Pvt. in collusion with the public servant who are co-accused in the present case has committed a fraud, by which he has caused wrongful loss to the State Exchequer in multi crore scam in NOIDA and considering the gravity of the offence and seriousness of the financial loss which has been caused to the State Exchequer, Lucknow Bench of this Court vide order dated 30.7.2017 had directed the C.B.I New Delhi to register an FIR in the matter and C.B.I after due investigation has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner on 15.3.2016 along with other co-accused persons and trial Court has taken cognizance of the offence against the petitioner and other co-accused persons on 29.3.2016 and further supplementary charge sheet submitted has been submitted against the petitioner on 31.5.2017 and as the petitioner did not appear before the Court in view of the cognizance taken against him on 29.3.2016 and he preferred Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 31090 of 2016 in which he challenged the charge sheet dated 15.3.2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therein including his warrants, proclamation etc., which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 17.10.2016 and being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2016, he preferred an SLP (Crl). No. 10190 of 2017 before the Apex Court and on 16.1.2017 the said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017 as the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to apply for bail but he did not do so and after the supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 31.5.2017 and NBW were issued on 7.6.2017 by the trial Court when he failed to appear in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C initiated against him, he filed a Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 18849 of 2017 before this Court challenging the supplementary charge sheet dated 31.5.2017 and NBW issued against him on 7.6.2017, which has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2017 and petitioner had given an undertaking before this Court that he would appear before the trial Court, for which he was allowed two weeks' time to surrender and apply for bail and for a period of two weeks, NBW were directed to be kept in abeyance by this Court, but he did not appear before the court concerned and he had approached the Apex Court against the order dated 6.7.2017 and filed SLP No. 7749 of 2017 and the Apex Court also refused to interfere in the order dated 6.7.2017 and further directed him to appear before the trial Court and apply for regular bail vide order dated 24.11.2017 and in pursuance of the same the petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 7.12.2017 and moved an application for releasing him on furnishing bond in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C and the trial Court after considering the his application dated 7.12.2017 rejected the same by a well considered and reasoned order. Against which, the petitioner again went to the Apex Court and filed SLP No. 9764 of 2017 which too was disposed of on 15.12.2017 in which no interference was made and it was left open for the petitioner to approach the High Court, if aggrieved by the order of the trial Court dated 7.12.2017 He next argued that in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C it is well within the powers of the Court concerned to apply its discretion in the facts and circumstances of the case whether to release a person on personal bond or to remand him to judicial custody and interpretation made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that work “may’ used in Section 88 Cr.P.C is mandatory and not discretionary is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the trial Court has rightly rejected his application for releasing him in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C taking into account his conduct which is evident from the material on record that the petitioner did not appear before the trial Court after the charge sheet was submitted against him on 15.3.2016 and cognizance was taken against him on 29.3.2016 and when he did not appear proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C were issued against him and further when supplementary charge sheet was submitted, taking into account the conduct the conduct of the petitioner who was avoiding his appearance before the trial court on 7.6.2017, NBW was ultimately issued securing his presence before the trial Court and case laws which has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner mostly referred to cases relates to complaint case and looking to the gravity of the offence committed by the petitioner in collusion with the co-accused person, the trial Court has rightly rejected his application dated 7.12.2017 releasing him under Section 88 Cr.P.C. Moreover, as the petitioner is confined in jail in pursuance of the order of the trial Court, he has remedy to move bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C which is to be decided by the trial Court in accordance with law.

13. Considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material brought on record. It is evident that charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 15.3.2016 and cognizance was taken on 29.3.2016 and the petitioner has challenged the said charge sheet by means of filing Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 31090 of 2016 in which he challenged the charge sheet dated 15.3.2016 and all consequential proceedings arising therein including his warrants, proclamation etc., which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 7.10.2016 and being aggrieved by the said order dated 7.10.2016, he preferred an SLP (Crl). No. 10190 of 2017 before the Apex Court and on 16.1.2017 the said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017 as the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to apply for bail and after the supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 31.5.2017 and NBW were issued on 7.6.2017 by the trial Court when he failed to appear in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C initiated against him, he filed a Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 18849 of 2017 before this Court challenging the supplementary charge sheet dated 31.5.2017 and NBW issued against him on 7.6.2017, which has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2017 and petitioner had given an undertaking before this Court that he would appear before the trial Court, for which he was allowed two weeks' time to surrender and apply for bail and for a period of two weeks, NBW were directed to be kept in abeyance by this Court, but he did not appear before the court concerned and he had approached the Apex Court against the order dated 6.7.2017 and filed SLP No. 7749 of 2017 and the Apex Court also refused to interfere in the order dated 6.7.2017 and further directed him to appear before the trial Court and apply for regular bail vide order dated 24.11.2017 and in pursuance of the same the petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 7.12.2017 and moved an application for releasing him on furnishing bond in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C and the trial Court after considering the his application dated 7.12.2017 rejected the same by a well considered and reasoned order. Against which, the petitioner again went to the Apex Court and filed SLP No. 9764 of 2017 which too was dismissed in which no interference was made. Against which, he filed 482 Cr.P.C application which was disposed of on 15.12.2017 Hence, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the aforesaid prayer.

14. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it was mandatory on the part of the trial Court to release the petitioner under Section 88 Cr.P.C as he himself has surrendered before the trial Court and during investigation he was not arrested by the Investigating Agency and he is ready to cooperate with the trial, the said contention is not sustainable in the eyes of law as from the plain reading of Section 88 Cr.P.C it is evident that it is discretion of the trial Court to release a person on his furnishing bond and the trial Court has rightly applied its discretion in the present case taking into account the conduct of the petitioner who in spite of his undertaking given before this Court as well as before the Apex Court time and again and has not appeared before the trial Court, as is evident from the order of this Court dated 17.10.2016 passed in Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 31090 of 2016. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 17.10.2016, he preferred an SLP (Crl). No. 10190 of 2017 before the Apex Court and on 16.1.2017 the said SLP was dismissed by the Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017 as the same was withdrawn by the petitioner with liberty to apply for bail, but he didnot surrender and apply for bail and after the supplementary charge sheet was submitted against the petitioner on 31.5.2017 and NBW were issued on 7.6.2017 by the trial Court when he failed to appear in pursuance of the proceedings under Section 82/83 Cr.P.C initiated against him, he filed a Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 18849 of 2017 before this Court challenging the supplementary charge sheet dated 31.5.2017 and NBW issued against him on 7.6.2017, which has been dismissed by Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.7.2017 and petitioner had given an undertaking before this Court that he would appear before the trial Court, for which he was allowed two weeks' time to surrender and apply for bail and for a period of two weeks, NBW were directed to be kept in abeyance by this Court, but he did not appear before the court concerned and he again had approached the Apex Court against the order dated 6.7.2017 and filed SLP No. 7749 of 2017 and the Apex Court also refused to interfere in the order dated 6.7.2017 of this Court and further directed him to appear before the trial Court and apply for regular bail vide order dated 24.11.2017 and in pursuance of the same the petitioner appeared before the trial Court on 7.12.2017 and moved an application for releasing him on furnishing bond in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C and the trial Court after considering the his application dated 7.12.2017 rejected the same by a well considered and reasoned order.

15. It appears that the petitioner has not disclosed to the Apex Court of filing of Crl. Misc. 482 Cr.P.C Application No. 31090 of 2017 which was earlier filed by him challenging the charge sheet dated 15.3.2016 and order taking cognizance by the trial Court on 29.3.2016 which was disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 17.10.2016 and feeling aggrieved by it he preferred a SLP No. 10190 of 2017 before the Apex Court which too was dismissed as withdrawn by the Apex Court vide order dated 16.1.2017 with liberty to the petitioner to apply for bail. The petitioner has been misusing the process of law for his ulterior motive time and again, hence, the impugned orders requires no interference by this Court.

16. Moreover, the judgment of the AIR 1963 SC 1618, Vishwa Nath Jiloka v. I Munsif Lower Criminal Court, Bahraich and 1989 Cri. LJ 2082, Sanjay Chaturvedi v. State, 132 (2006) DLT 692 cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case and relates to complaint case only and in the present case there is multi crore scam, taking into account the gravity of the offence and considering the above conduct of the petitioner which is evident from the material on record, the trial Court has rightly rejected his application for releasing him in view of Section 88 Cr.P.C Thus, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the vires of Section 88 Cr.P.C has no substance and not at all acceptable. The petitioner is in jail and he is at liberty to take recourse to law.

17. The writ petition lacks merit and, is, accordingly, dismissed.

Pankaj Jain Petitioner v. Union Of India And Another S

Judgment Summary: Ramesh Sinha, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

Respondent's (C.B.I./Union of India) Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Pankaj Jain Petitioner v. Union Of India And Another S

Comments

We use cookies to improve your experience