9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (3) TMI 1279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . It has come on record that the applicant was never found present on the scene of occurrence and his presence is only being tried to be established on the basis of telephonic conversations between them and it is being stated that he was in the vicinity but having sensed that police was at the place near about, he fled from there feigning that his father had slipped in the bathroom so as to avoid his arrest. This would indicate that this is a factual aspect which needs to be decided at the time of trial but as on date, it may be taken that benefit of bail has been granted to the co-accused Ranveer Singh and the said benefit may also be granted to the accused-applicant as his case is on better footing as he was not arrested on the spot. As regards medical held, record shows that he was having fibrosis in his lung and he was found Covid-19 positive and was admitted at the higher standard hospital, therefore possibility of adverse effect on his health also cannot be ruled out and lastly this Court finds that nothing has been brought on record from the side of prosecution that he did not appear regularly before the trial court as five witnesses have already been recorded and no inst ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Aligarh besides some unknown officials of the Uttar Pradesh Police with the allegation that applicant had conspired with above named co-accused and was trying to influence in investigation then F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 was registered on 3.6.2018 at P.S. Kasna, District Gautam Budh Nagar. In the charge sheet of the present case, it is alleged that co-accused V.S. Rathore and applicant had demanded illegal gratification from co-accused Ranveer Singh in order to influence the investigation in F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018. Following the alleged telephonic conversation between accused-applicant, co-accused Ranver Singh and co-accused V.S. Rathore, CBI team allegedly laid a trap on 2.2.20219 at the residence of V.S. Rathore i.e. Supertech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad. The allegation against the applicant is that he was supposed to meet co-accused Ranveer Singh who was carrying ₹ 20,00,000/- and then both of them were supposed to go to the residence of co-accused V.S. Rathore, but applicant became apprehensive about the presence of the CBI trap team and hence left the spot immediately. Thereafter C.B.I. is said to have recovered ₹ 20,00,000/- from the flat of co-a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting the applicant's voice being awaited does not arise. It is further submitted that Amrendra Pratap Singh (PW-3) was a Manager of Hotel Kapoor Inn from where co-accused Ranveer Singh had allegedly left in the morning on 2.2.2019. He has made revelations completely demolishing the case of the prosecution as he has deposed that raid was conducted by the CBI at Hotel Kapoor Inn, New Delhi and arrested coaccused Ranveer Singh was made from there and not from Ghaziabad, therefore prosecution version of trap being laid in respect of co-accused Ranveer Singh and V.S. Rathore at Supretech Livingston Society, Crossing Republic, Ghaziabad is nothing but a farce but the C.B.I. did not get the said witness declared hostile despite him not supporting the prosecution version. All the witnesses relating to entry and exit from Supertech Livingston Society, Ghaziabad have been examined but none of them has deposed that applicant was present at the place of occurrence on 2.2.2019, as PW-1, PW-2 and PW-5 have been examined and discharged by the trial court, their testimony have been annexed at Annexure 9 of the affidavit. The ground on which co-accused Ranveer Singh has been allowed bail is th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... laying officer Suresh Pal tried to cover up the said falsity by making statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. saying that inadvertently he missed out to put the brass seal impression on the spot memo which statement is diametrically opposed to the statements made by independent witnesses. If the statement of investigating officer is given preference over the independent witness's that would defeat the truthfulness of the investigation. While rejecting the first bail, this Court had directed the trial court to be concluded the trial within one year but it is a matter of record that trial is still at the initial stage as only 5 out of 43 witnesses have been examined, therefore it is not likely to conclude in near future. Applicant was granted short term bail vide order dated 31.3.2020 passed by the trial court, however on 7.5.2020 Division Bench of this Court in P.I.L. No. 564 of 2020 extended the period of interim bail till 3 June, 2020 and the same has been kept extended till 1.12.2020 and during all this while he has been regularly appearing before the trial court without having any adverse allegation against him of having influenced the witnesses. It is further argued that regu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p proceedings co-accused Ranveer Singh disclosed that crime no. 421 of 2018 was registered on 3.6.2018, P.S. Kasna against officials of YIEDA and his two brothers-in-law Gaurav Kumar, Manoj Kumar and his nephew Anil who was co-accused in that case, had been arrested by Kasna Police and further disclosed that police was suspecting his role also in the said case, hence he obtained protection against arrest from this Court. It is further argued that co-accused Ranveer disclosed during trap proceedings that he was acquainted with the applicant who was approached in the month of August, 2018 to get some favour in the said case at P.S. Kasna. Thereafter in the month of December, 2018 applicant brought him to co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore at his flat no. 1101. During interaction, co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore told him that he was well acquainted with Nishank sharma, Dy. S.P. who was investigating the said case and assured that he would speak to him to get a favourable decision. On that date co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore demanded a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- as bribe from him (Ranveer) towards initial installment. Co-accused Ranveer further disclosed that during the trap procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng the accused-persons including the applicant. Government of U.P. had proposed to transfer the investigation of the F.I.R. No. 421 of 2018 to C.B.I. which was under consideration. The co-accused Nishank had joined C.B.I. in September, 2016 on deputation and was posted at CBI Academy Ghaziabad and the accused-applicant was also posted in the same academy, hence they also knew each other well. The said 89 audio files reveal that co-accused Ranveer was in constant touch with the applicant and co-accused Virendra Singh Rathore since November, 2018 and they had several meetings also. Final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. had already been filed against co-accused V.S. Rathore on 2.4.2019 although supplementary charge sheet has been filed on 27.5.2019 against the applicant after further investigation was concluded. Further investigation is still on against unknown officials of the U.P., Police. Further it is submitted that witnesses so far examined in the present case had not said anything which may demolish the prosecution version. Co-accused Ranveer has already been enlarged on regular bail on 21.10.2020. The trial court has rightly framed the charges against the applicant and other c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Sr. No. 20, name of the applicant appears whose voice sample had been collected. It is further argued that PW-3 Amrender Singh, Manager in his deposition stated that co-accused Ranveer Singh stayed in hotel Kapoor Inn on 31.1.2019. He came in the late evening/night at 12:00/01:00 hours in the night of 31.1.2019 and left the hotel in the early morning at 0500 AM. He also stated that because of the co-accused Ranveer Singh came late in the night of 31.1.2019, he stated that he was under pressure and will hand over the ID proof next day in the morning. He has further stated that Ranveer Singh often used to stay in his hotel. PW-3 has disclosed facts of the case and nothing special is there in his deposition, hence he could not be declared hostile. Material witnesses are yet to be examined including witnesses related to arrest memo i.e. independent witnesses. The witness PW-3 has proved that co-accused Ranveer Singh stayed in the said hotel on 31.1.2019 and therefore he is only a witness of production of guest entry register of the said hotel to CBI on 8.2.2019 at CBI Office which contains entry of co-accused Ranveer and therefore he is not a witness of arrest. In fact witness of ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 18,00,000/- which was recovered by the CBI on 2.2.2019, copies of the Bank account statement of the applicant and application for withdrawal of GPF and sale deed are annexed at Annexure 6 (colly.). No case is made out against the applicant for the offences of the Sections mentioned above in fact no case has been slapped against the applicant relating to disproportionate assets case also, accused being public servant. 7. Supplementary counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the CBI, wherein it is stated that applicant was admitted to Vmhas Nayati Super Speciality Hospital, Nehru Nagar, New Delhi on 18.11.2020 and thereafter was discharged on 27.11.2020 during which period, he was treated by Dr. R.D. Patel, Sr. Consultant. Thereafter he visited the said hospital on 6.1.2021 at 5:54PM. He got discharged from the hospital on 27.11.2020 and at that time it was mentioned that applicant was comparatively more stable. It is further mentioned that he had travelled more than 60 KM to and fro distance in the evening on 6.1.2021. He was advised further follow-up after three weeks. He was neither admitted to hospital thereafter nor was he asked for follow up treatment regularly. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of the trap memo as there were two other independent witnesses, whose statements are yet to be recorded and that this witness was recorded only for the purposes of entry of co-accused Ranveer in the said hotel of which he was Manager, therefore on this basis bail to the accused-applicant should not be allowed. This Court, in this regard, is of the view that benefit of bail has already been allowed to the co-accused Ranveer who is one of the main accused in this case who was said to have gone to the house of co-accused V.S. Rathore with an amount of ₹ 20,00,000/- to be handed over to the applicant and the said coaccused V.S. Rathore. It has come on record that the applicant was never found present on the scene of occurrence and his presence is only being tried to be established on the basis of telephonic conversations between them and it is being stated that he was in the vicinity but having sensed that police was at the place near about, he fled from there feigning that his father had slipped in the bathroom so as to avoid his arrest. This would indicate that this is a factual aspect which needs to be decided at the time of trial but as on date, it may be taken that bene ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
