(A.K. Sikri and Ashok Bhushan, JJ.)
Pankaj Jain _____________________________________ Petitioner
v.
Union of India & Anr. _________________________ Respondent(s)
Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 199/2017, decided on December 6, 2017
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The petitioner herein had approached this Court by filing SLP (Crl.) No. 7749 of 2017 wherein orders dated 06.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad were challenged. The said petition was disposed of with the following order:
“In this case, it appears that after investigation, the CBI has filed initial charge-sheet. However, further investigation was carried out which resulted in filing of first and thereafter second supplementary charge-sheets. When the original charge-sheet was filed and non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner, he had challenged the same and had approached this court. This court had permitted the petitioner to approach the trial court for filing of application for regular bail. He did not do so. In the meantime, in the supplementary charge-sheet non-bailable warrants were issued and against the issuance of said non-bailable warrants as well as for quashing of charge-sheet, the petitioner filed petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which the impugned order has been passed by the High Court. The High Court has rightly held that it is not a fit case for quashing as the investigation is at the initial stage.
In these circumstances, Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, has limited his argument to the prayer so far as it relates to issuance of non-bailable warrants against the petitioner. Apart from what is stated above, we find that even before the High Court the petitioner had inclined to appear before the Special Judge, CBI within two weeks to apply for regular bail. It is on the basis of the aforesaid statement that the High Court has stayed the non-bailable warrants.
In view of the above, we are not inclined to go into the legal issues raised by the petitioner in this special leave petition. However, we grant further two weeks’ time to the petitioner to apply for regular bail before the Special Judge, CBI with a direction to the trial court to consider the said application for bail forthwith. In the said bail application it would be open to the petitioner to raise all the contentions which are available to him in law.
With the aforesaid observation, the special leave petition stands disposed of.”
2. The petitioner has not filed any application before the trial Court so far. Instead, the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution is filed. In this petition, it is stated that notwithstanding the position in law, as per which, in such cases, the petitioner, who was not arrested during investigation by the CBI, has to simply surrender and give a bond under Section 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), the Court is rejecting the bail application and, in the process, it is the Court which is becoming the arresting authority. The petitioner has given example of other co-accused persons who have been given this treatment.
3. In view of our aforesaid orders dated 24.11.2017, we are of the opinion that the petitioner should, in the first instance, appear before the trial Court, which is the course of action already charted out. It would be open to the petitioner to move an application under Section 88 Cr.P.C. or a bail application, as may be advised. It will also be open to the petitioner to rely upon the judgments in support of his contention as noted above. It is for the trial Court to go through the matter and take a view thereupon. Insofar as this Court is concerned, no opinion on merits is expressed.
4. Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, learned senior counsel, submits that the petitioner, who is present in the Court today, shall surrender and appear before the trial Court tomorrow, 07.12.2017. This statement of the learned senior counsel is noted.
5. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
———
