2023 (3) TMI 881

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Adv. Mr. Vinay Prakash, Adv. Mr. Niteen Kumar Sinha, AOR Mr. Udayan Sinha, Adv. Mr. Hemant Mour, Adv. Mr. Vivek Sharma, AOR Mr. Sidharth Khattar, Adv. Mr. Viresh B. Saharya, AOR Mr. Akshat Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Akash Jain, Adv. For the Respondent : Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR JUDGMENT V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, J. Leave granted. 2. Accused Nos. 2, 3, 10 and 14 in FIR No. RC 219 2019 E0006, investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation For short, "CBI" , have come up with the above appeals challenging the orders of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad rejecting their applications for the grant of anticipatory bail. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Vikramjeet Banerjee, learned Additional Solicit....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....offences complained. 5. Though the FIR was lodged on 29.06.2019, none of the accused was ever taken into custody by the respondent-CBI. It appears that all the accused joined the investigation and cooperated with the respondent. Therefore, after the completion of investigation, CBI filed the final report on 31.12.2021. 6. After the CBI filed the final report on 31.12.2021, the Special Court issued summons for the appearance of the accused on 07.03.2022. Therefore, apprehending arrest, the appellants moved applications for anticipatory bail. The applications were rejected by the Special Court and the rejection order was also confirmed by the High Court. Therefore, the appellants are before this Court. 7. Accused No.2, namely Shri Ma....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t require the custodial interrogation of the appellants during the period of investigation from 29.06.2019 (date of filing of FIR) till 31.12.2021 (date of filing of the final report). Therefore, it is difficult to accept the contention that at this stage the custody of the appellants may be required; (ii) In the reply/counter filed before the High Court, the CBI had taken a categorical stand that the Court had merely issued summons and not warrant for the appearance of the accused. In the case of Shri Deepak Gupta, CBI had taken a stand before the Special Court that "the presence of the accused is not required for the investigation but it is certainly required for trial" and that therefore he needs to be present. Therefore, all th....