Akash Gupta vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 22 February, 2023

[Cites 28, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

Akash Gupta vs The Central Bureau Of Investigation ... on 22 February, 2023

2. By way of these two applications under Section 438 CrPC, the accused-applicants seek bail, apprehending their arrests pursuant to FIR No.RC/219 2019 E 0006 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC and Sections 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and substantive offences, Police Station CBI/EO-I, District New Delhi.

3. The FIR in question was registered on 29.6.2019 under Sections 120-B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC against accused M/s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited, Mahadoom Bawa, Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta, Ram Murti Devi, Vijay Kumar, Vyas Dev, Ravinder Pandita and K. Gangadharan on the basis of a written compliant dated 27.6.2019 filed by Ms. Beena Vaheed, Deputy General Manager and Zonal Head, Delhi (North) of erstwhile Corporation Bank, New Delhi.

4. During the year 2009-10 to 2012-13, M/s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited having registered office at E 14/13, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi through its Managing Director Sri Mahadoom Bawa was availing credit facilities of Rs.472.79 Crores from the consortium of eight banks including Corporation Bank, Mid Corporate Branch, Sector-18, Noida, U.P.. The said branch of the Corporation Bank had sanctioned Cash Credit Limit of Rs.20 Crores and LC/BG for Rs.85 Crores to M/s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited. The said cash credit facilities were secured by Paripassu charge on Book debts/current assets amounting to Rs.528.16 Crores, pledge of FD amounting to Rs.12.75 Crores, Plant, machinery and other movable assets amounting to Rs.3.20 Crores, Residential building situated at Plot No.13, Street No.E-14M, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi of the company valuing Rs.5.91 Crores and residential property situated at 51-A, Khasra No.75, Arjun Nagar, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi in the names of guarantors namely accused Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta and Ram Murti Devi.

5. The account turned into NPA with outstanding balance of Rs.92.21 Crores on 22.11.2012 due to non-payment by the party. Thereafter, in the year 2013 accused Vijay Kumar and Vyas Dev also stood as guarantors in the loan account of the company and mortgaged another immovable property bearing Plot No.H-7, Khasra No.79/6/1, Laxmi Park, Nangloi Jat, Delhi admeasuring 1000 Sq. Yards owned jointly by them as security exclusively to Corporation Bank. Value of the said property was done by co-accused Ravinder Pandita and this property was assessed to be of value of Rs.20 Crores.

6. During the course of investigation, it was found that the property situated at Plot No.51A, Khasra No.75, Arjun Nagar, Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi was not in the name of guarantors, namely, Deepak Gupta, Seema Gupta and Ram Murti Devi, rather it stood in the names of different persons and the title deeds submitted with the Bank were defective. The title deed of Plot No.H-7, Khsra No.79/6/1, Nangloi Jat, Delhi deposited with the bank was also defective. It was found that the signatures of the vendor of the original sale deed available with the bank and its certified copy were also slightly different. Further, the book debt statement submitted to the bank a on 31.7.2012 was also bogus.

7. Role of the accused-applicants in banking-fraud came to light during the course of investigation by the CBI. The investigation report filed by the CBI would reveal that the accused Ramesha JS in criminal conspiracy with co-accused, Mahadoom Bawa, Anil Kumar and Akash Gupta, the present accused-applicants opened LC No.2012/5 in favour of M/s CCL International Limited, registered office 30, Bharti Artist Colony, Main Vikas Marg, Delhi on 24.01.2012 for a total amount of Rs. 7,55,78,750/- for supply of supply of 370 tonnes of R Steel Bars; 585 tonnes of M S Angle and 536 tonns of I Beam. The shipment was to be made from Ghaziabad to Bhatinda (Punjab). The advising bank of LC was IDBI bank, Ghaziabad. After issuing the LC, accused, Ramesha JS forwarded the same to the advising bank i.e. IDBI bank vide his letter dated 24.01.2012. M/s CCL International Limited is a public limited company registered with Registrar of Companies of Delhi and Haryana. The accused-applicant, Akash Gupta is one of the directors of the company. Accused - Anil Kumar, father of accused, Akash Gupta is also one of the directors and authorized signatory in the said company. This company, M/s CCL International Limited has a current account and overdraft limit account with IDBI bank, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. M/s CCL International Limited was maintaining a Usance Bill Purchase (UBP) limit account for Rs. 10 Crore with South Indian Bank, Connaught Place Branch, New Delhi.

8. Accused-applicant, Akash Gupta submitted a bill of exchange on 30.01.2012 for Rs.7,55,78,750/- duly signed by himself and Mahadoom Bawa along with copies of bogus bills and fake lorry receipts of M/s Rakesh Transport Company to South Indian Bank, Connaught Place, New Delhi for discounting.

9. The CBI during the investigation found out that such a huge alleged quantity of iron steel bars, MS Angle and I Beam were allegedly supplied by the accused-applicants through Maruti 800 Cars, tankers, scooters, motorcycles, tankers etc. The CBI found out that several vehicles mentioned on different invoices/lorry receipts were incapable of transporting the quantity of iron as mentioned in the invoices. Detail chart of the vehicles, particularly, type of vehicles, weight and carrying capacity have been mentioned in the charge-sheet/investigation report in paragraphs 16.111 and 16.112 of the investigation report. The CBI, therefore, on the basis of detailed investigation concluded that the number of non-goods transport vehicles like scooters and motorcycles, tankers and pick up ans were written indicating also that iron beams had not been transported. Several of the vehicles whose numbers were written on the invoices were incapable of carrying 35-42 metric tonnes (35000-42000 kilograms) as the difference of their laden and unladen weight which was carrying capacity of the trucks is 700 kilograms to 21200 kilograms only. It was further found out that negotiating bank (South Indian Bank) vide its letter dated 31.01.2012 forwarded the documents (viz. BOE, invoice and LR) to Corporation Bank, Sector-18, Noida for confirmation in accordance with the terms of LC. The acceptance of payment of said bill was given by accused, Ramesha JS to South Indian Bank vide his letter dated 01.02.2012, mentioning therein that they had no observed any discrepancy in the documents and accepted to pay the bill on due date. While giving the acceptance of Corporation Bank accused, Ramesha JS ignored the fact that the lorry receipt of non-IBA approved transporter was enclosed with the bills and also that no transit insurance was submitted. After receipt of acceptance of Corporation Bank, South Indian Bank, Connaught Place credited the discounted value of bills under the LC amount to Rs.07,09,74,787/- in account of M/s CCL International Limited with IDBI Bank, Ghaziabad. The said amount was thereafter transferred to account of M/s CCL International Limited with IDBI Bank on the same day. Subsequently, accused, Akash Gupta and Anil Kumar vide different cheques issued under their signatures transferred the said amount in the names of different parties, namely, M/s AR Infrastructure Ltd., M/s Evinix Industries Ltd., M/s KPS Iron & Alloys Company, M/s Vishal Steel & Supplies, M/s Bhumeshwar Enterprises, M/s Trilok Steel Traders, M/s Asian Resources Private Limited, M/s SS Syndicate, M/s Hari Om Ispat & Alloys Private Limited. An Amount of Rs. 1.25 Crore was also directly transferred by M/s CCL International Private Limited to account of M/s AB Petro Service Private Limited with SBBJ, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi and total amount of Rs.4.60 Crore was transferred in the said account of M/s AB Petro Service Private Limited from the different account. Thereafter, the amount of Rs. 6.35 Crore in two branches i.e. Rs. 2 Crore and Rs. 4.35 Crore was transferred by accused, Mahadoom Bawa from the account of M/s AB Petro Service to cash credit account of M/s Nafto Gaz India Private Limited with the same bank i.e. SBBJ for discharging its loan liability.

10. The investigation also revealed that M/s Vishal Steel Suppliers, M/s SS Steel Syndicate, M/s KPS Iron & Alloys Company Private Limited, M/s Trilok Steel Traders, M/s Arun Steel Corporation etc. had no business dealing with M/s CCL International Limited. They had received the amounts in their accounts and transferred the same to different accounts for some commission. Since they had been found to be involved in money laundering along with the other account holders their matter was also being referred to Enforcement Directorate for appropriate action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

11. Thus, the CBI, while carrying out detailed investigation in the banking-fraud had found involvement of the accused-applicants and had noticed that without supply of anything, the had received Rs.7,55,78,750/- in furtherance to criminal conspiracy with co-accused.

12. This Court has already dismissed bail anticipatory bail applications of the few co-accused.

13. Mr Alok Saxena and Mr. K.K. Rao, learned counsels appearing of the accused-applicants, submit that except for discrepancies in the vehicles by which supplies of iron items were made, there is nothing on record to suggest that the accused were involved in banking-fraud. It is further submitted that in the FIR no aspersion was cast upon the accused-applicants and, there is no evidence to suggest criminal conspiracy by the accused-applicants with other co-accused in banking-fraud and, therefore, the accused-applicants may be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

14. On the other hand, Mr. Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy Solicitor General of India, assisted by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate, representing the respondent - CBI, has submitted that the investigation would reveal the involvement of the accused-applicants with other co-accused in such a huge banking-fraud and even without supplying the single iron item the accused-applicants received Rs.7,55,78,750/- in their accounts which they transferred to different parties without any real transaction and, therefore, there is enough evidence to suggest the criminal conspiracy of the accused-applicants with other co-accused.

15. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the accused-applicants as well as learned counsel for the respondent - CBI.

16. It is well settled law that while dealing with the case in respect of the financial and economic fraud, the Court has to adopt a different approach as the economic offences are distinct and stand alone than the other offences committed under the IPC.

17. The banking system is backbone of the economy. If the bank officials and other persons in furtherance of criminal conspiracy cheat the bank of its fund, the Court should not enlarge such an accused on anticipatory bail.

18. The economic crimes of such mammoth scale and width are craftily planned and executed. It is well settled that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. While granting bail, the Court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, magnitude and gravity of offence and nature of evidence in support of accusations.

19. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2013) 7 SCC 439 (Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation), has opined in paragraphs 34 and 35 as under:-

"34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

20. The Supreme Court in the case reported in (2017) 13 SCC 751 (State of Bihar and another Vs. Amit Kumar alias Bachcha Rai), in paragraphs 9 and 13, while considering the bail application of an accused involved in economic offence of huge magnitude, has held as under:-

"9. We are conscious of the fact that the accused is charged with economic offences of huge magnitude and is alleged to be the kingpin/ringleader. Further, it is alleged that the respondent-accused is involved in tampering with the answer sheets by illegal means and interfering with the examination system of Bihar Intermediate Examination, 2016 and thereby securing top ranks, for his daughter and other students of Vishnu Rai College, in the said examination. During the investigation when a search team raided his place, various documents relating to property and land to the tune of Rs 2.57 crores were recovered besides Rs 20 lakhs in cash. In addition to this, allegedly a large number of written answer sheets of various students, letterheads and rubber stamps of several authorities, admit cards, illegal firearm, etc. were found which establishes a prima facie case against the respondent. The allegations against the respondent are very serious in nature, which are reflected from the excerpts of the case diary. We are also conscious of the fact that the offences alleged, if proved, may jeopardise the credibility of the education system of the State of Bihar.

13. We are also conscious that if undeserving candidates are allowed to top exams by corrupt means, not only will the society be deprived of deserving candidates, but it will be unfair for those students who have honestly worked hard for one whole year and are ultimately disentitled to a good rank by fraudulent practices prevalent in those examinations. It is well settled that socio-economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail [Nimmagadda Prasad v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 466 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 575; Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] . Usually socio-economic offence has deep-rooted conspiracies affecting the moral fibre of the society and causing irreparable harm, needs to be considered seriously."

21. In the case reported in (2018) 11 SCC 46 (Rohit Tandon Vs. Directorate of Enforcement) the Supreme Court has again reiterated the consistent view that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences, affecting the economy of the country as a whole. Paragraphs 21 and 22, which are relevant, are extracted hereunder:-

"21. The consistent view taken by this Court is that economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. Further, when attempt is made to project the proceeds of crime as untainted money and also that the allegations may not ultimately be established, but having been made, the burden of proof that the monies were not the proceeds of crime and were not, therefore, tainted shifts on the accused persons under Section 24 of the 2002 Act.

22. It is not necessary to multiply the authorities on the sweep of Section 45 of the 2002 Act which, as aforementioned, is no more res integra. The decision in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : (2005) SCC (Cri) 1057] and State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty [State of Maharashtra v. Vishwanath Maranna Shetty, (2012) 10 SCC 561 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri) 105] dealt with an analogous provision in the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999. It has been expounded that the Court at the stage of considering the application for grant of bail, shall consider the question from the angle as to whether the accused was possessed of the requisite mens rea. The Court is not required to record a positive finding that the accused had not committed an offence under the Act. The Court ought to maintain a delicate balance between a judgment of acquittal and conviction and an order granting bail much before commencement of trial. The duty of the Court at this stage is not to weigh the evidence meticulously but to arrive at a finding on the basis of broad probabilities. Further, the Court is required to record a finding as to the possibility of the accused committing a crime which is an offence under the Act after grant of bail."

22. Again, in the case reported in (2019) 9 SCC 165(Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Nittin Johari and another), the Supreme Court has held that stringent view should be taken by the Court towards grant of bail with respect to economic offences. Paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 of the aforesaid case are extracted hereunder:-

"24. At this juncture, it must be noted that even as per Section 212(7) of the Companies Act, the limitation under Section 212(6) with respect to grant of bail is in addition to those already provided in CrPC. Thus, it is necessary to advert to the principles governing the grant of bail under Section 439 of CrPC. Specifically, heed must be paid to the stringent view taken by this Court towards grant of bail with respect of economic offences. In this regard, it is pertinent to refer to the following observations of this Court in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country. 35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations." This Court has adopted this position in several decisions, including Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement [Gautam Kundu v. Directorate of Enforcement, (2015) 16 SCC 1 : (2016) 3 SCC (Cri) 603] and State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar [State of Bihar v. Amit Kumar, (2017) 13 SCC 751 : (2017) 4 SCC (Cri) 771] . Thus, it is evident that the above factors must be taken into account while determining whether bail should be granted in cases involving grave economic offences.

25. As already discussed supra, it is apparent that the Special Court, while considering the bail applications filed by Respondent 1 both prior and subsequent to the filing of the investigation report and complaint, has attempted to account not only for the conditions laid down in Section 212(6) of the Companies Act, but also of the general principles governing the grant of bail.

26. In our considered opinion, the High Court in the impugned order has failed to apply even these general principles. The High Court, after referring to certain portions of the complaint to ascertain the alleged role of Respondent 1, came to the conclusion that the role attributed to him was merely that of colluding with the co-accused promoters in the commission of the offence in question. The Court referred to the principles governing the grant of bail as laid down by this Court in Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra [Ranjitsing Brahmajeetsing Sharma v. State of Maharashtra, (2005) 5 SCC 294 : 2005 SCC (Cri) 1057] , which discusses the effect of the twin mandatory conditions pertaining to the grant of bail for offences under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 as laid down in Section 21(4) thereof, similar to the conditions embodied in Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act. However, the High Court went on to grant bail to Respondent 1 by observing that bail was justified on the "broad probabilities" of the case.

27. In our considered opinion, this vague observation demonstrates non-application of mind on the part of the Court even under Section 439 CrPC, even if we keep aside the question of satisfaction of the mandatory requirements under Section 212(6)(ii) of the Companies Act."

18. The Supreme Court in the case of P. Chidambaram Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, (2019) 9 SCC 24 while considering the scope and ambit of Section 438 Cr.P.C. and the power of the Court to grant anticipatory bail to an accused involved in economic offences, held as under:-

78. Power under Section 438 CrPC being an extraordinary remedy, has to be exercised sparingly; more so, in cases of economic offences. Economic offences stand as a different class as they affect the economic fabric of the society. In Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain [Directorate of Enforcement v. Ashok Kumar Jain, (1998) 2 SCC 105 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 510] , it was held that in economic offences, the accused is not entitled to anticipatory bail.

79. The learned Solicitor General submitted that the "scheduled offence" and "offence of money-laundering" are independent of each other and PMLA being a special enactment applicable to the offence of money-laundering is not a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Solicitor General submitted that money-laundering being an economic offence committed with much planning and deliberate design poses a serious threat to the nation's economy and financial integrity and in order to unearth the laundering and trail of money, custodial interrogation of the appellant is necessary.

80.Observing that economic offence is committed with deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless to the consequence to the community, in State of Gujarat v.Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal[State of Gujarat v. Mohanlal Jitamalji Porwal, (1987) 2 SCC 364 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 364] , it was held as under : (SCC p. 371, para 5) "5. ... The entire community is aggrieved if the economic offenders who ruin the economy of the State are not brought to book. A murder may be committed in the heat of moment upon passions being aroused. An economic offence is committed with cool calculation and deliberate design with an eye on personal profit regardless of the consequence to the community. A disregard for the interest of the community can be manifested only at the cost of forfeiting the trust and faith of the community in the system to administer justice in an even-handed manner without fear of criticism from the quarters which view white collar crimes with a permissive eye unmindful of the damage done to the national economy and national interest."

81. Observing that economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with different approach in the matter of bail, in Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI [Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy v. CBI, (2013) 7 SCC 439 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 552] , the Supreme Court held as under : (SCC p. 449, paras 34-35) "34. Economic offences constitute a class apart and need to be visited with a different approach in the matter of bail. The economic offences having deep-rooted conspiracies and involving huge loss of public funds need to be viewed seriously and considered as grave offences affecting the economy of the country as a whole and thereby posing serious threat to the financial health of the country.

35. While granting bail, the court has to keep in mind the nature of accusations, the nature of evidence in support thereof, the severity of the punishment which conviction will entail, the character of the accused, circumstances which are peculiar to the accused, reasonable possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses being tampered with, the larger interests of the public/State and other similar considerations."

(emphasis supplied)

82. Referring to Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria [Dukhishyam Benupani v. Arun Kumar Bajoria, (1998) 1 SCC 52 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 261], in Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora[Directorate of Enforcement v. Bher Chand Tikaji Bora, (1999) 5 SCC 720 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 1045] , while hearing an appeal by the Enforcement Directorate against the order [Bherchand Tikaji Bora v. State of Maharashtra, Criminal Application No. 2140 of 1998, decided on 21-7-1998 (Bom)] of the Single Judge of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory bail to the respondent thereon, the Supreme Court set aside the order of the Single Judge granting anticipatory bail.

83. Grant of anticipatory bail at the stage of investigation may frustrate the investigating agency in interrogating the accused and in collecting the useful information and also the materials which might have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by the order of the court. Grant of anticipatory bail, particularly in economic offences would definitely hamper the effective investigation. Having regard to the materials said to have been collected by the respondent Enforcement Directorate and considering the stage of the investigation, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail.

84. In a case of money-laundering where it involves many stages of "placement", "layering i.e. funds moved to other institutions to conceal origin" and "interrogation i.e. funds used to acquire various assets", it requires systematic and analysed investigation which would be of great advantage. As held in Anil Sharma [State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 : 1997 SCC (Cri) 1039] , success in such interrogation would elude if the accused knows that he is protected by a pre-arrest bail order. Section 438 CrPC is to be invoked only in exceptional cases where the case alleged is frivolous or groundless. In the case in hand, there are allegations of laundering the proceeds of the crime. The Enforcement Directorate claims to have certain specific inputs from various sources, including overseas banks. Letter rogatory is also said to have been issued and some response have been received by the Department. Having regard to the nature of allegations and the stage of the investigation, in our view, the investigating agency has to be given sufficient freedom in the process of investigation. Though we do not endorse the approach of the learned Single Judge in extracting the note produced by the Enforcement Directorate, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order [P. Chidambaram v. CBI, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 9703]. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our view, grant of anticipatory bail to the appellant will hamper the investigation and this is not a fit case for exercise of discretion to grant anticipatory bail to the appellant."

23. The Court has to take into consideration while considering the anticipatory/regular bail application, nature of offence and the Court should refuse the bail if the offence is serious and is of huge magnitude, particularly, in economic offences. Corruption is a menace which is eating the vitals of economy of this country.

24. Considering the allegations in the charge sheet, nature of offence in which the huge money of the corporation Bank was allegedly siphoned off by the accused-applicants in furtherance of criminal conspiracy, this Court does not find it a fit case where the accused-applicants should be enlarged on anticipatory bail as the offence allegedly committed by the accused-applicants does not fall within the parameters of Section 438 CrPC. Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications are hereby REJECTED.

25. However, it is provided that if the accused-applicants surrenders before the trial court concerned within ten days from today and apply for regular bail, their bail applications shall be considered and decided expeditiously, in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by any of the observations made by this Court on merit while rejecting these anticipatory bail applications.

[D. K. SINGH, J.] Order Date :- 22.2.2023 MVS/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Allahabad High Court