ABHAY KUMAR BAJPAI Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed contending that the applicant cannot be compelled to seek a fresh bail under the substantive offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(c) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 inasmuch as the applicant is already on bail pursuant to the orders passed by the trial court on 10.9.2012 in terms of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. for the alleged commission of offences as defined under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 409, 420 IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) For this Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant, has invited the attention of the Court to the contents of the FIR to urge that the FIR specifically mentions the alleged involvement of the applicant in the offences which are substantive offences as well and, therefore, it should be presumed that the order which was passed on 10.9.2012 is also in relation to the substantive offences as well for which he does not require any separate order on altering of the offences as substantive offences at the post charge stage. He further contends that Section 13(1)(c) is not a penal provision and is only a definition clause, therefore, no bail is required in the aforesaid section. The prayer made is to direct the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad to continue to give effect to the bail order dated 10.9.2012 and not to insist for any further bail in connection with the substantive offences.

(3.) He further submits that post framing of charges does not change the situation and the prevalent practice before the court concerned of calling upon the accused to get bails under the substantive offences separately should be discontinued. For this, learned counsel has also relied on the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Hamida Vs. Rashid @ Rasheed and others, 2008 1 SCC 474 paragraph 10 in particular.