Pankaj Jain v. Central Bureau Of Investigation

1. Heard Sri. Ravi Kant, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri. Amit Saxena along with Sri. Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri. Amit Misra, learned counsel for the CBI.

2. By means of this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C the applicant has prayed for quashing the entire criminal proceedings of Special Case No. 10 of 2016, under Sections 120B, 420, 109, 468, 471 I.P.C read with Section 13(2) read with Section 13(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Police Station CBI/STF/New Delhi, District Ghaziabad (CBI v. Yadav Singh) arising out of charge sheet no. 2/2016 dated 15.03.2016 submitted in Case Crime/FIR No. RC/DST/2015.A/0004.CBI/STF/DLI/2015 as well as summoning order dated 29.03.2016

3. Learned counsel for the applicant raised several objections with regard to the validity of the charge-sheet as well as criminal proceedings which has been substantiated in the affidavit filed in support of the application. The submission is that neither there is any specific allegation against the applicant nor is there any evidence. In our opinion, the applicant can raise all these objections before the Trial Court at the stage of framing of charge/discharge as provided under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Accordingly, we are not inclined to entertain this application in view of the statutory remedy available to the applicant.

4. The application, therefore, is liable to be dismissed.

5. At this stage the learned counsel for the applicant made a prayer that the bail application of the applicant in the aforesaid case be ordered to be considered expeditiously, if possible on the same day by the Courts below.

6. After hearing learned counsel for the applicant and learned counsel for the C.B.I, this application is finally disposed of with a direction that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below within two weeks from today and applies for bail, then his bail application shall be considered and decided in view of the settled law laid down by the Seven Judges' decision of this Court in the case of Amrawati v. State of U.P, reported in 2004 (57) ALR-290 as well as judgement passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P, reported in 2009 (3) ADJ 322 (SC) after hearing the Public Prosecutor in the aforesaid crime number for the aforesaid offences.