PURUSHOTTAM CHAUDHARY Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P. Chakravarty and Sri Pranshu Agarwal, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the C.B.I.

(2.) By means of this application the applicant has prayed for quashing of the impugned order dtd. 24/1/2023 by means of which Non-Bailable Warrant was ordered to be issued and also for quashing the order dtd. 8/2/2023 by means of which Non-Bailable Warrant as well as the process u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued by the Court of Special Judge, CBI, Court No. 2, Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 01/2023, C.B.I. vs. Bhagwati Prasad Verma and others, arising out of R.C. No. 8(A)/2014, u/s 120B/409, 420, 511 IPC and Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, P.S. CBI / ACB, Lucknow.

(3.) At the very outset learned counsel for the applicant has drawn attention of this Court towards the order dtd. 10/1/2023 whereby the learned trial court has issued bailable warrant against the applicant presuming that despite the summons having been served upon him he did not appear. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that summon has not been served on the petitioner in terms of Sec. 64 Cr.P.C. which provides that if the person whose presence is required in the Court is not present in the house such summon should be served upon any male member of the family but the same has been served upon one female member of the family. If it is presumed for the argument sake that such summon has been served on the family member (Bhabhi) of the applicant and the petitioner did not appear on that summon the learned trial court may issue summons against him but on the basis of presumption that same has been served on the applicant through his relative the bailable warrant should not have been issued against him as this exercise is in derogation of Sec. 64 Cr.P.C.