Delhi High Court - Orders
Central Bureau Of Investigation vs Rohit Reddy Bathina & Anr on 17 November, 2022
Author: Sudhir Kumar Jain
Bench: Sudhir Kumar Jain
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CRL.M.C. 2910/2022 & CRL M.A.Nos.12409/2022 & 18586/2022
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Vikramjit Bonerjee, ASG with
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC
with Mr. Prashant Rawat, Ms. Neha
Som, Advocates
versus
ROHIT REDDY BATHINA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Mohit Mathur, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Puneet Mittal, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Neeraj Chaudhari, Mr. Akshay
Chandra, Mr. Ranjyot Singh,
Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN
ORDER
% 17.11.2022
1. The present petition is filed under section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Article 227 of the Constitution for quashing of the order dated 25.09.2021 passed by the Court of Special Judge, PC Act, CBI-01, Rouse Avenue Courts, New Delhi whereby the petitioner was directed to make record available as mentioned in the present petition.
2. The perusal of order dated 25.09.2021 reflects that two applications were filed on behalf of Rohit Reddy under section 207 Cr.P.C. read with section 91 Cr.P.C. dated 30.10.2019 and another application filed under Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:23.11.2022 10:36:28 section 91 Cr.P.C. dated 05.09.2020. The Trial Court passed the following the directions:-
As such, both the applications are allowed with the condition that the relevant record shall be produced before the Court in a sealed cover together with the copies of the same by scoring out or applying white fluid to hide/delete the objectionable or unrelated information/identity of source etc. Similar exercise can be carried out qua the record of the Review Committee. Given the submission by the CBI that Review Committee communicates only in case where it does not find the surveillance order appropriate and not otherwise. So presuming that no communication was received by CBI from Review Committee declining the request, so there can't be any order. Nevertheless. the record of Review Committee showing that the proposal in the instant case was presented before Review Committee and it was examined can definitely be shown. Application is disposed of accordingly.
3. The learned Additional Solicitor General for the petitioner/CBI stated that the case is fixed before the concerned Trial Court for consideration of charge and during the consideration of the charge, the petitioner/CBI shall not be relying upon/referring the documents which are stated to be allowed to be placed on record vide order dated 25.09.2021.
4. Let the hearing on the consideration of charge by the Trial Court be proceeded in accordance with law.
5. List on 18th January, 2023 at 03:00 P.M SUDHIR KUMAR JAIN, J NOVEMBER 17, 2022/j/kg Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:JITENDRA Signing Date:23.11.2022 10:36:28