VINOD VERMA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having heard on IA No. 12412/14, applicant's application for taking the annexed documents on record. For the reasons stated in it, the same is allowed and annexed documents are taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that they are under receipt of the case diary. Heard. On behalf of the applicant, this second repeat petition is preferred under Section 439 of Cr.P.C for grant of bail as he is in custody since 9.1.2014 in connection of Crime No. RC0082011A0014, registered at Police Station CBI, Bhopal for the offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 467, 471 & 120 -B of IPC and Section 13 (2), r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. Earlier application of the applicant filed in this regard under the same provision has been dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 27.01.2014 in M.Cr.C. No. 1062/2014 by extending a liberty to revive the prayer at subsequent stage on availability of some additional circumstances/facts or after examining the material prosecution witnesses, whichever is earlier. On asking the applicant's counsel that how many witnesses have been examined in the trial, on which he fairly submits that till today no such witness has been examined in the matter. Learned counsel for the applicant after referring the statements of Mahendra Singh Tiwari and Anurag Vyas recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. said that mere perusal of such statements, it is apparent that the applicant was not involved in any manner in the alleged offence and inspite that he has been falsely implicated in the matter.

(2.) He further said that the present applicant was working in the firm of Pushpendra Mishra, which was run in the name of Prakhar Construction and such Pushpendra Mishra taking advantage of his higher position has constituted a dummy firm in the name of Trupati Construction, which is in the name of present applicant as proprietor of such firm and in such premises, the alleged incriminating acts were committed by Pushpendra Mishra and not by the present applicant. In continuance, he also argued that the alleged loan was sanctioned for the joint venture of the aforesaid both the firms and the amount was also disbursed by the bank in the name of both firms and thereafter such sum was shifted by the present applicant from his account to the account of Pushpendra Mishra. In such premises, he submits that Pushpendra Mishra has been released on bail and thus on the ground of parity also by allowing the petition, the applicant be released on bail.