Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1720 (ALL)

Kamlesh Singh @ Kamlesh Kumar v. State of U. P.

2015-07-03

A.P.SAHI

body2015
JUDGMENT Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri N.I. Jafri, learned counsel for the CBI. 2. In similar circumstances the applicant had earlier come up before this Court in a 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 395 of 2014 where orders were passed rejecting the application with reasons on 8th January, 2014 extracted hereinunder: - "Hon'ble Rajesh Dayal Khare,J. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. The present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., has been filed for quashing of the order dated 20.11.2013 passed by learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Unit (C.B.I.)/Additional District Judge, Ghaziabad in Special Case No. 17 of 2012 under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C., and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, whereby process under Section 82 Cr.P.C., has been issued against the applicant. The contention of the counsel for the applicant is that no offence against the applicant is disclosed and the present prosecution has been instituted with a malafide intention for the purposes of harassment. He pointed out certain documents and statements in support of his contention. Sri Anurag Khanna, learned counsel for the C.B.I. contends that earlier the applicant had filed Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 40 of 2013, with a prayer that his prayer for bail in the present case may be disposed of on the same day, if possible and another Bench of this Court vide order dated 04.01.2013 had been pleased to dispose of the same with the direction that if the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court below and apply for bail within 30 days, his prayer for bail shall be considered and decided by both Courts below expeditiously, copy of which order has been produced before this Court and is taken on record. Sri Khanna, further states that the applicant had again filed Criminal Misc. Sri Khanna, further states that the applicant had again filed Criminal Misc. (482) Application No. 10794 of 2013 for quashing of the charge sheet dated 07.09.2012 as well as proceedings of the aforesaid case which was again disposed of by another Bench of this Court on 09.07.2013 thereby refusing to quash the charge sheet as well as proceedings and directed that in case, the applicant appears and surrenders before the Court and apply for bail within 45 days from the date of order, his prayer for bail be considered and disposed of in view of settled law laid as laid down in Amrwati's as well as Lal Kamlendra's case and for the aforesaid period, coercive action was kept in abeyance. Thereafter time extension application was also moved in the aforesaid 482 petition and time was further extended for a period of two weeks vide order dated 02.09.2013, photo copy of the orders dated 09.07.2013 as well as 02.09.2013 have been produced before this Court and is taken on record. Learned counsel for the C.B.I. also contends that second time extension application was also moved by the applicant in the aforesaid 482 petition no. 10794 of 2013 as the applicant did not appear within the extended time, which time extension was rejected vide order dated 02.09.2013, copy of which order has also been produced before this Court and is taken on record. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the C.B.I., the present 482 Cr.P.C. petition is mis-conceived. Accordingly, it is rejected." 3. The situation is no different presently, inasmuch as, it appears that the applicant is avoiding his presence before the court. 4. Learned counsel then contends that orders have been passed by the Apex Court which have been appended alongwith the application as Annexure 9 that deserve appreciation for release. 5. Having perused the same, this Court finds that they are interim orders and therefore are not binding precedents. Even otherwise the said interim orders have been passed in peculiar facts of those cases. 6. Consequently, the application for all the reasons above lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.