GYAN SWAROOP GUPTA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These four bail applications were present before this Court during summer vacations on 17th of June, 1993 with the prayer for releasing the accused applicants on bail during pendency of the case in the Court below. All these applicants are involved in case Crime No. 288 of 1993, under Sections 7/12/13(1)/d of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The bail application of Gyan Swaroop Gupta, the leading case, had not actually been finally disposed of by the learned Sessions Judge when his bail application was moved before this Court. The prosecution had applied for grant of remand of the accused-applicant in custody before the Court below. The Court below declined to grant the remand as prayed by the prosecution on the ground that the arrest itself was illegal on the ground of non-compliance of Section 50 of Cr. P.C. However, it was observed that in case the prosecution desire to arrest Gyan Swaroop Gupta-applicant after informing him the reasons for his arrest as required under Section 50, Cr. P.C. he may be arrested by the prosecution again. However, the remand prayed by the prosecution was rejected. Thus there was no order of rejection of bail by the Court below when it was moved before this Court.

(2.) In other connected cases of Rajit Ram Misra, Surya Prakash Misra and Rasal Singh, the Sessions Judge, by order dated 16-6-1993 had rejected their bail applications.

(3.) It appears that the bail application of Gyan Swaroop Gupta was moved after serving the notice to the Government Advocate on 15-6-1993. It is settled practice of this Court that ten days clear notice is given to the Government Advocate for obtaining instructions before it is heard for disposal. It was stated before this Court by accused-applicant Gyan Swaroop Gupta that his bail application had not been rejected by specific words, but the remand prayed for custody of the accused applicant was refused by the Court below. Thus, it was stated that the bail application before this Court maintainable. The applicant stated that he being a responsible Government Officer who had been illegally arrested by persons not authorised under the Act and kept in custody. It was stated that his bail application be considered and disposed of without sticking to the Rule of ten days notice to the Government Advocate before its disposal.