B.N. SRIVASTAVA Vs. CBI, EOU-IV, NEW DELHI

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Crl.), 784 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 25, 2017

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON
                      CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  784 OF 2017
             (Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.10161 of 2016)


B.N. SRIVASTAVA                                                  …APPELLANT

                                   VERSUS

CBI, EOU-IV, NEW DELHI                                          …RESPONDENT


                                O  R  D  E  R


S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.


1     Leave granted.

2     The application filed by the appellant  was  allowed  by  the  Special
Judge, Prevention of Corruption, C.B.I., Ghaziabad, in  Special  Case  No.05
of 2012, dated 28th April, 2016, subject to the following conditions:
“1    The applicant/accused will not tamper with  the  evidence  during  the
trial.
2     The applicant/accused will not pressurize/intimidate  the  prosecution
witness.
3     The applicant/accused will personally appear before this  trial  court
on the date fixed.
4     The applicant/accused  will  surrender/deposit  his  passport  in  the
court.
      Accused/applicant Brijesh Narayan Srivastava  (B.N.  Srivastava)  will
furnish two personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two bail  sureties  each  in
the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.
      Since the allegations against the accused  are  too  serious,  causing
heavy financial losses  to  the  government,  therefore,  the  accused  will
deposit Rs. 50 lakh in the court within four weeks  from  the  date  of  his
release on bail.”

3     The appellant challenged  the  condition  imposed  in  the  order  for
depositing Rupees fifty lakh as precondition while granting bail before  the
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.M.A.No.16764 of 2016.   In  the
said case an interim  order  was  passed  on  31st  May,  2016  staying  the
imposition of condition of the deposit of Rupees fifty lakh subject  to  the
appellant depositing Rupees ten lakh within one month from the date  of  the
order.  Accordingly, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rupees  ten  lakh.
The High Court by its order dated 11th  November,  2016  has  dismissed  the
application filed by the appellant challenging the aforesaid order.
4     We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5     It is clear that the appellant has already deposited a sum  of  Rupees
ten lakh in terms of an interim order passed by the High Court. It  is  also
clear from the materials on record that the co-accused, namely,  B.N.  Yadav
and R.K. Singh have been granted bail  without  a  condition  being  imposed
upon them for depositing the amount. The appellant has been in  custody  for
more than four years.  In the facts and circumstances of the  case,  we  are
of the view that the Special Court was justified in  granting  the  bail  to
the appellant.  However, the  condition  imposed  by  the  court  below  for
depositing  Rupees  fifty  lakh  is  onerous.  The  appellant  has   already
deposited Rupees ten lakh, which is sufficient for  granting  bail  to  him.
Therefore, direction issued by the trial court for deposit of  Rupees  fifty
lakh for grant of bail is accordingly modified.
6     The appellant shall be released on bail  if  he  satisfies  the  other
conditions imposed by the Special Court  in  its  order  dated  28th  April,
2016.
7     The appeal is disposed of accordingly.



                                                             …………………………………J.
                                                            (J. CHELAMESWAR)


                                                             …………………………………J.
New Delhi;                                                 (S. ABDUL NAZEER)
April 25, 2017.