SUMIT TANDON Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in RC No. 220 2012 E 0001 under Section 420/465/468/471/ IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short the PC Act) registered by the CBI.

(2.) The grievance of the Petitioner is that the Petitioner applied for an anticipatory bail before the Learned Special Judge, Delhi but the same was dismissed on the ground that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the anticipatory bail application. According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the Court at Delhi only has jurisdiction to try the offence and thus the learned Special Judge erred in rejecting the anticipatory bail application for want of territorial jurisdiction. The FIR by CBI has been registered at Delhi. The Petitioner has been asked to produce documents at Delhi and the treasury from which the money has been embezzled is also at Delhi. Hence, even though the copy of the FIR has been filed by the CBI and the accused are produced for remand before the learned Special Judge, Gaziabad, the only Court which is competent to try the matter is the Court of learned Special Judge, CBI at Delhi. Reliance in this regard is placed on CBI Vs. Braj Bhushan Prasad & Ors., 2001 AIR(SC) 4014 and Sanjay Tripathi Vs. CBI, 2012 1 JCC 767.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Respondent on the other hand contends that the abovementioned FIR was registered on the direction of Hon ble High Court at Allahabad. After registration of FIR, the copy of the FIR was sent to and all the accused are being produced for remand before the learned Special Judge, Gaziabad as the corruption and embezzlement of Government funds has taken place in Uttar Pradesh.