Delhi High Court - Orders
Dr. Arun Mohan vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 13 September, 2022
Author: Anu Malhotra
Bench: Anu Malhotra
$~56
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(CRL) 544/2020 & CRL.M.A. 18444/2022
DR. ARUN MOHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Arshdeep Singh Khurana, Mr.K.S.
Negi and Ms.Tamavi Sharma,
Advocates
versus
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Prasanta Varma, SPP for CBI
Ms.Swarupama Chaturvedi, Advocate
for applicant of Crl.M.A. No.
18444/2022 (IBBI)
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ANU MALHOTRA
ORDER
% 13.09.2022 Crl.M.A. No. 18444/2022 The matter is already fixed for the date 11.10.2022 and is taken up on Crl.M.A. No. 18444/2022 filed on behalf of the Insolvency and Banckruptcy Board of India (IBBI) seeking to intervene in the matter with the scope of the application being in view of the observations in the order of the Special Judge, CBI, dated 14.1.20220 which are to the effect:
"18. That the petitioner was produced before the Ld. Special Judge, CBI-13, New Delhi. The Ld. Special Judge, eBr -13 , New Delhi held:
«That the accused Arun Mohan was initially appointed as interim resolution professional and thereafter, as resolution professional. His duties leave no doubt that he had to report to committee of creditors and board under the IB Code, with updated list of claims and relevant information for formulating a resolution plan as per Section 29 of the Code"
"That the accused Arun Mohan is well covered within the definition of public servant for the purpose of PC Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:19.09.2022 11:25:24 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.
Act and hence, the allegation of demanded acceptance of bribe as made in this case, do make out a case under PC Act, 1988. "
"that the investigation is at initial stage. Complainant in his complaint has referred to his meetings with accused persons on different dates at different times, wherein the alleged demand for bribe was made by both the accused persons. Such allegations do require investigation and collection of relevant pieces of evidence. Hence, at this stage, to avoid any manipulation of evidence, do not find it appropriate to release accused person on bail. "
as well as observations in para 10 of the impugned order to the effect:
"23. That the IBBI feels duty bound to assist this Hon 'ble Court with its expertise and has come to this Hon'ble Court in the hopes that the issues/challenges connected with IRP and RP would be redressed accordingly and become a landmark for the future generations and further to assist this Hon'ble Court in reaching a just, fair, and equitable decision."
with it having been submitted by the applicant that its intervention is bona fide and in the interest of justice submitting to the effect that there are several matters relating to the issue that are arising in relation to the interim resolution professionals being treated as public servants.
Notice of the application is issued to the respondents/non-applicants and response thereto be filed by either side within a period of two weeks.
Renotify on 11.10.2022 the date already fixed for consideration thereof. A copy of the application be supplied to the CBI by the intervener.
ANU MALHOTRA, J SEPTEMBER 13, 2022/ sv Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:SUMIT GHAI Signing Date:19.09.2022 11:25:24 This file is digitally signed by PS to HMJ ANU MALHOTRA.