TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 881X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the CBI did not 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 - All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, seem to have taken place during the period 2009-2010 to 2012-2013 and all are borne out by records. When the primary focus is on documentary evidence, we fail to understand as to why the appellants should now be arrested. More importantly, the appellants apprehend arrest, not at the behest of the CBI but at the behest of the Trial Court. This is for the reason that in so ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. 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 Solicitor General, appearing for the respondent-CBI. 4. The First Information Report For short, FIR in this case was registered on 29.06.2019 at the instance of the Corporation Bank, for the alleged offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Mahdoom Bava, who is the appellant in one of these appeals is stated to be the promotor/director of the Company and he is alleged to be the kingpin. Accused No.3, namely Shri Deepak Gupta is a third party who has allegedly given his personal gu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 that the CBI wanted was the presence of the accused before the Trial Court to face trial. In such circumstances, to oppose the anticipatory bail request at this stage may not be proper; and (iii) All transactions out of which the complaint had arisen, s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|