# Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr v. C.B.I

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-28
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482 No. 28882 of 2024
- **Bench:** Samit Gopal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mukul-kumar-jain-anr-v-c-b-i-53041
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- Law protects
those who respect it and abide by it. A person
flagrantly violating law cannot be equated with
a person following the process of law. A person
avoiding the process of law cannot be let to
ventilate his grievance as per his choice for
selective stages as per his sweet will--- The
accused-applicants
never
joined
the
investigation which concluded in filing of a
charge sheet against them as an absconder and
again they are absconding from the trial court
despite knowledge of the proceedings and thus
are not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court for seeking quashing of proceedings--
- total non cooperation of the applicants in the
investigation, vagueness of the pleadings, the
conduct of the applicants in not joining the
investigation and not co-operating therein due
to which charge sheet was submitted against
them as absconders, intentional efforts to avoid
the courts orders as would appear from the
order of the revisional court and the fact that
charge sheet is not being challenged on its
merits coupled with the fact that the order of
taking
cognizance
dated
01.3.2024
being
challenged in a revision which stood dismissed
on its merits, no ground for interference is
called for. (Para 20 & 21)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

## Text

_Characters 0–39,952 of 45,916. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39952 for what follows._

154 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Magistrate is evaluating whether to
proceed
against
un
chargesheeted
individuals or not.

29. The Apex Court expressed its
view in the case of M.S. Ahlawat v. State of
Haryana And Anr.8 that a fair hearing for
the complainant or informant is essential in
criminal
proceedings
especially
the
Magistrate is deciding on reports excluding
certain individuals from prosecution.

30. From the aforesaid judgements, it
is established that while the Magistrate has
discretion in accepting or rejecting the police
report, the informant or complainant must
generally be given an opportunity to be
heard, especially if the Magistrate is inclined
to accept a report that exonerates some
individuals.

31. After going through the aforesaid
provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and various decisions, this Court is of the
opinion that issuance of notice to informant
giving opportunity to him to address the
Magistrate with respect to non-chargesheeted persons would prolong the matter
causing unnecessary delay and whereas
ample opportunity is there for the informant
to place evidence and materials on record
during course of trial, on the basis of which
they can be arrayed as accused persons
under the provisions of Section 319 Cr.P.C.,
no prejudice is caused to the informant when
the Magistrate has only issued notice to the
charge-sheeted persons as in the present
case. The right of the informant is not in any
way affected in case if the Magistrate has
taken cognizance only against chargesheeted persons without issuing notice to the
informant with respect to the persons who
are named in the FIR but have not been
charge-sheeted.

32. This Court feels that the stage of
Section 319 of Cr.P.C., has not yet been
reached in the present case. The order
impugned vide which cognizance has been
taken against the charge-sheeted persons is in
exercise of powers under Section 190(1)(b)
of Cr.P.C. and at this stage it is not fatal to the
powers of the Magistrate to take cognizance
of offence and issue process against those
who have not been arrayed as accused
persons by the police while filing the charge
sheet. The aforesaid has also been held in the
case of India Carat P. Ltd. Vs. State of
Karnataka & Anr.9.

33.
Having
considered
the
submissions advanced by learned counsel for
the parties, facts of the case and material
brought on record in view of the discussion
as referred to herein above, and keeping the
settled proposition of law on the issue, I am
of the view that no interference is called for
in the present matter. The instant application
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. stands dismissed.

34. The Court would like to
appreciate the hard work put in by Ms.
Shreya Shukla, Research Associate, who has
drawn attention to detail and the same shows
in her work of providing legal assistance in
this matter.
---------
(2025) 3 ILRA 154
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMIT GOPAL, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 28882 of 2024

Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opposite Party
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
155
Counsel for the Applicants:
Shiv Sagar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sanjay Kr. Yadav

Criminal
Law-The
Code
of
Criminal
Procedure, 1973-Section 482- Law protects
those who respect it and abide by it. A person
flagrantly violating law cannot be equated with
a person following the process of law. A person
avoiding the process of law cannot be let to
ventilate his grievance as per his choice for
selective stages as per his sweet will--- The
accused-applicants
never
joined
the
investigation which concluded in filing of a
charge sheet against them as an absconder and
again they are absconding from the trial court
despite knowledge of the proceedings and thus
are not entitled to invoke the inherent powers of
this Court for seeking quashing of proceedings--
- total non cooperation of the applicants in the
investigation, vagueness of the pleadings, the
conduct of the applicants in not joining the
investigation and not co-operating therein due
to which charge sheet was submitted against
them as absconders, intentional efforts to avoid
the courts orders as would appear from the
order of the revisional court and the fact that
charge sheet is not being challenged on its
merits coupled with the fact that the order of
taking
cognizance
dated
01.3.2024
being
challenged in a revision which stood dismissed
on its merits, no ground for interference is
called for. (Para 20 & 21)

Petition dismissed. (E-15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Samit Gopal, J.)

1. On 03.01.2025 the following order
was passed by this Court:-

"1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mayank Kumar
Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv
Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicants who appears in the present
matter as well as in the connected matter
and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. in both
the matters.

3. The present application is
connected with Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 11034 of 2024 (Mukul Jain
And Another vs. Central Bureau Of
Investigation) in compliance of order dated
27.09.2024.

4. Records show that the present
matter has been listed today in the
Additional Cause List / Unlisted List-I
under the "Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
(Expedited) case". The matter along with
connected matter has been listed today on
the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
dated 02.01.2025 directing the matter to be
listed today.

5. On the matter being taken up
in the revised list, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the matter be
adjourned for a week to enable him to
prepare it for arguments.

6. The records further show that
the Apex Court in the Misc. Application
Diary No. 59714 of 2024 in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 12964 of 2024
(Mukul Kumar Jain vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation)
has
vide
order
dated
20.12.2024 directed that the present matter
be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
for fixing a date in the opening week of
January, 2025 with a further request to the
learned Presiding Judge of the Bench to
take up the matter expeditiously.

7. Today, on the matter being
taken up, the learned counsel for the
applicants seeks adjournment on the
ground of preparation for arguments. He is
reminded of the order dated 20.12.2024 of
the Apex Court passed on his application.

8. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the both matters be
listed on 16.01.2025 to enable him to argue
them.
156 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

9. Prayer is allowed.

10. The present matter along with
connected matter be listed on 16.01.2025."

2. Subsequently on 16.01.2025 the
following order was passed by this Court:-

"1.
The
present
matter
is
connected with Crl. Misc. 482 No. 11034 of
2024 (Mukul Jain and another Vs. Central
Bureau of Investigation), the record of
which goes to show that the same has been
finally disposed of vide order dated
6.8.2024 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court.

2. In the present matter an order
has been passed by the Apex Court on
20.12.2024 directing the matter to be
placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice for
fixing a date in the opening week of
January, 2025 with the further request to
the learned Presiding Judge of the Bench to
take up the matter expeditiously. The
matter was thus placed before this Bench
on 3.1.2025 on which date learned counsel
for
the
applicants
prayed
for
an
adjournment for a week to enable him to
prepare the matter for arguments. The
following order was passed by this Bench
on the said date:-

"1. List revised.

2. Heard Sri Mayank Kumar
Jain, Advocate holding brief of Sri Shiv
Sagar Singh, learned counsel for the
applicants who appears in the present
matter as well as in the connected matter
and Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Sri Sanjay Kumar
Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I. in both
the matters.

3. The present application is
connected with Application U/S 482
Cr.P.C. No. 11034 of 2024 (Mukul Jain
And Another vs. Central Bureau Of
Investigation) in compliance of order dated
27.09.2024.

4. Records show that the present
matter has been listed today in the
Additional Cause List / Unlisted List-I
under the "Hon'ble Supreme Court Order
(Expedited) case". The matter along with
connected matter has been listed today on
the direction of Hon'ble the Chief Justice
dated 02.01.2025 directing the matter to be
listed today.

5. On the matter being taken up
in the revised list, learned counsel for the
applicants submits that the matter be
adjourned for a week to enable him to
prepare it for arguments.

6. The records further show that
the Apex Court in the Misc. Application
Diary No. 59714 of 2024 in Special Leave
Petition (Criminal) No. 12964 of 2024
(Mukul Kumar Jain vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation)
has
vide
order
dated
20.12.2024 directed that the present matter
be placed before Hon'ble the Chief Justice
for fixing a date in the opening week of
January, 2025 with a further request to the
learned Presiding Judge of the Bench to
take up the matter expeditiously.

7. Today, on the matter being
taken up, the learned counsel for the
applicants seeks adjournment on the
ground of preparation for arguments. He is
reminded of the order dated 20.12.2024 of
the Apex Court passed on his application.

8. Learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the both matters be
listed on 16.01.2025 to enable him to argue
them.

9. Prayer is allowed.

10. The present matter along with
connected matter be listed on 16.01.2025."
 3. Today the matter has been
taken up on mention being made on behalf
of the applicant. Shri Manish Gupta and
Shri Shiv Sagar Singh, Advocates appear
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
157
for the applicant and Sri Gyan Prakash,
learned
Senior
Advocate/
Additional
Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Advocate appear for
the
Respondent,
Central
Bureau
of
Investigation.
 4. Learned counsel for the C.B.I.
submits that after the order of the Apex
Court and on 3.1.2025 he has been served
with a third supplementary affidavit dated
3.1.2025 for which he may be granted three
weeks'
time
to
file
a
counter
affidavit/response.

5. The record also show that
although an adjournment was prayed on
3.1.2025 for preparing the matter for
arguments on behalf of the applicant but a
third supplementary affidavit is seen to
have been filed on the said date.

6. The prayer of learned counsel
for the Respondent C.B.I. is allowed.

7. Three weeks' time is granted to
file a counter affidavit/response to the third
supplementary affidavit dated 3.1.2025.
Applicants will have two weeks thereafter
to file rejoinder/response to the same, if
any.

8. Let the matter be listed on
20.2.2025. The office shall ensure that the
matter is listed under the heading of cases
expedited by the Supreme Court on the next
date."

3. On 20.2.2025 the following order
was passed:-

"1. List revised.

2. Sri Manish Gupta, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
C.B.I. are present.

3. Learned counsel for C.B.I.
submits that the matter is to be argued by
Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate
/ Deputy Solicitor General of India who
had although come to Court but has gone
back since there is wedding of his daughter
scheduled for tomorrow. He prays for an
adjournment in the matter for a weeks.

4. Learned counsel for the
applicant fairly does not object to the same
but submits that in compliance of the order
dated 16.01.2025 no response / counter
affidavit has been served on him by the
C.B.I.

5. In view of the request for
adjournment made by learned counsel for
C.B.I., the matter is adjourned for today.

6. Let the matter be listed on
27.02.2025."

4. On 27.20.2025 the following order
was passed by this Court:-

"1. List revised.

2. Sri Manish Gupta, Advocate
holding brief of Sri Shiv Sagar Singh and
Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned counsels for
the applicants and Sri Sumit Kesarwani,
Advocate holding brief of Sri Sanjay
Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for C.B.I.
are present.

3. Learned counsel for the C.B.I.
has served a copy of counter affidavit to
learned counsel for the applicants today in
Court. The same be filed / uploaded on the
portal by learned counsel for the C.B.I.
within 48 hours.

4. Learned counsels for the
applicants submit that they do not propose
to file any rejoinder affidavit to the counter
affidavit of the C.B.I.

5. Learned counsel for C.B.I.
submits that the matter is to be argued by
Sri Gyan Prakash, learned Senior Advocate
/ Deputy Solicitor General of India, who
has not come to Court since he is unwell.

6. The records show that on the
last occasion adjournment was sought on
158 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
behalf of Sri Gyan Prakash on personal
ground. Today also adjournment is being
sought on his request on the ground of his
being unwell.

7. As a last opportunity, the
matter is adjourned for today.

8. Let the matter be listed on
06.03.2025.

9. The matter is being adjourned
on the understanding that it will not be
adjourned on the next date."

5. The order of the Apex Court dated
20.12.2024
passed
in
Miscellaneous
Application Diary No(s).59714/2024 is
extracted herein below:-

 "1. The application under Section
482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 bearing No.28882/2024, filed by the
applicant-petitioners
seeking
urgent
interim relief, is pending before the High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad. Since the
matter was not being listed for hearing
notwithstanding the urgency pleaded on
behalf of the applicant-petitioners, they
approached this Court through SLP (Crl.)
No.12964/2024. The said petition was,
however,not pressed on merits, with liberty
to move the High Court for expeditious
disposal
of
the
above-mentioned
application-cum-petition.

2. The instant miscellaneous
application has been filed in the disposed
of special leave petition, inter alia, pointing
out that the matter was listed before the
High Court on 23.10.2024, but it was
adjourned without any effective hearing to
18.12.2024. It is stated that no hearing
could take place on 18.12.2024 also, and
the matter has been adjourned to January,
2025 without fixing any date. In this
backdrop, the applicant-petitioners seek
appropriate direction.

3. Having heard Dr. Abhishek
Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for
the applicant-petitioners, and keeping in
view the fact that the application under
Section 482 bearing No.28882/2024 is still
pending before the High Court, we dispose
of this miscellaneous application with a
direction to the Registrar General of the
Allahabad High Court to put up this order
before Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High
Court
and
obtain
appropriate
administrative order with a date for
hearing fixed in the opening week of
January,2025, with a further request to the
learned Presiding Judge of the bench to
take up the matter expeditiously.

4. It is clarified that we have not
expressed any opinion on the merits of the
case.

5. The Miscellaneous Application
is, accordingly, disposed of.

6. All pending applications, if
any, also stand disposed of."

6.
The
present
Criminal
Misc.
Application U/S 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed
by
the
applicants
Mukul
Kumar
Jain/applicant
no.
1
and
Priyanka
Jain/applicant no. 2 before this Court with
the following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully
prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be
pleased to set-aside/quash the cognizance
order dated 01.03.2024 passed by the Ld.
Special Judicial Magistrate, CBI Court,
Ghaziabad in Case No. 06/2024 and all
consequential proceedings arising out of
the Charge-sheet dated 30.12.2023 in FIR
bearing
no.
RC0072022A0001
dated
11.03.20222 u/s 120-B, 420, 467, 468 and
471 I.P.C. r/w Sec 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the
PC Act, 1988 registered at P.S. ACB
Dehradun, Uttarakhand titled as "Central
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
159
Bureau of Investigation vs. Mukul Jain &
another.

That further pass any order that
no coercive action shall be taken against
the Applicant/s in the FIR bearing no.
RC0072022AA0001, dated 11.03.2022 u/s
120-B, 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC r/w Sec
13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, 1988
registered
at
P.S.
ACB
Dehradun,
Uttarakhand and any other consequential
proceedings till the pendency of the instant
application and further stay all the
proceedings arising out of the instant FIR
dated 11.03.2022 till the final disposal of
the instant application."

7. The facts of the case are that a
First Information Report was lodged on
11.3.2022 as F.I.R. No. RC0072022A0001
of 2022, Police Station ACB Dehradun,
District Dehradun, under Sections 120B
r/w sections 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C.,
Sections 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, by Mr. Asheesh
Agarwal, Branch Manager, Bank of India,
Meerut Branch, Anand Bhawan, Kothi No.
346, Khair Nagar, Meerut, U.P. against
Mukul Jain, Mrs. Priyanka Jain, M/s
Mahaveer Fording Pvt. Ltd. Meerut , M/s
Ashray Enterprises (Guarantor) through its
Proprietor Smt. Priyanka Jain and unknown
public servant(s) & private person(s) with
the allegations that M/s Mahaveer Forging
Pvt. Ltd., Meerut was availing credit
facilities to the tune of Rs.742.00 Lacs
from Syndicate Bank, Defense Colony
Branch, Meerut. The said loans were taken
over by the Bank of India, Meerut Branch
on 17.3.2011 with enhanced credit facilities
Term Loan (T.L.) of Rs.3 Crore and Cash
Credit (CC) limit of Rs. 13 Crore. Thus on
17.03.2011,
the
total
credit
facility
amounting to Rs. 1732.17 Lakh were
sanctioned by Bank of India to M/s
Mahaveer Forgings Pvt. Ltd. The borrower
company has created Equitable mortgage of
eight properties. As per the terms and
conditions,
borrower
company
was
required to change the land use of
Agricultural land to Non-agricultural land
within
30
days
period
after
first
disbursement. The accused borrower in
respect of three properties situated at
Village Bhuwa, Pargana Hastinapur, Tehsil
Mawana submitted three fake and forged
orders under Section 143 of Uttar Pradesh
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reform Act
with the bank related to change of land use.
Further Mukul Jain and Smt. Priyanka Jain
had consented for cancellation of sale deed
related to the mortgaged property situated
at Village Kashi Pargana & District Meerut
comprising of two sale deeds number 2872
and number 2874, without any permission
and intimation to the bank. Accordingly the
court concerned at Meerut cancelled the
sale deeds vide order 11.02.2015 which
resulted in the bank being deprived of its
security. The Directors of the company
removed the plant and machinery which
were hypothecated/charged to the bank
without informing the bank and thereby
deprived the bank of the security. It is
further alleged that Foreign Bills of Rs.250
lacs purchased by the Bank remained
unpaid. The company could not advise the
status of overseas consignment sent by it.
The Foreign Bills submitted by the
company turned out to be fake and no
amount could be recovered by the bank.
The account of the company thus turned
into NPA on 15.09.2014 causing wrongful
loss to the tune of Rs. 21,10,49,257.12 and
declared fraud on 25.06.2020.

8. Subsequent to lodging of the F.I.R.
the
matter
was
investigated
by
the
respondent/C.B.I. and a charge sheet no. 05
of 2023 dated 30.12.2023 was submitted
with the following details:-
160 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sl.
No
.

Name of
Accused

Acts and
Sections

Status
of
accused
person(s)
1.

Sh.
Mukul
Jain

U/s 120B
r/w 420,
468, 471
IPC
and
substantiv
e offence
thereof.
Abscondin
g.

2.

Smt.
Priyanka
Jain

U/s 120B
r/w 420,
468, 471
IPC
and
substantiv
e offence
thereof.
Abscondin
g.

3.

M/s
Mahaveer
Forgings
Pvt. Ltd.
Through
its
director
Sh.
Mukul
Jain
&
Smt.
Priyanka
Jain
U/s 120B
r/w 420,
468, 471
IPC
and
substantiv
e offence
thereof.

Pvt.
Ltd.
Company.

4.

Sh.
Akashdee
p Singhal
U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
Private
Person.

5.

Sh. Nimit
Singhal

U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
----

6.

Sh. Vipin
Kumar
Jain
U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
------

7.

Sh. Vikas

U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
Pvt.
Person.

8.

Sh.
Mohan
U/s 120B
r/w
420
Untraceabl
e
(Pvt.
Kumar
IPC
Person).
9.

Sh. Ajay
Sharma

U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
------

10.

Sh.
Devendra
Sharma
U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
Untraceabl
e
(Pvt.
Person).
11.

Smt.
Usha
Gupta

U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC.
---

12.

Sh.
Pankaj
Kumar
U/s 120B
r/w
420
IPC
----

9. On the said charge sheet the court of
Special
Judicial
Magistrate
(CBI),
Ghaziabad vide order dated 03.01.2024
directed the matter to be listed for
arguments for cognizance. Subsequently
vide order dated 01.03.2024 the court of
Special
Judicial
Magistrate
(CBI),
Ghaziabad took cognizance upon the said
charge sheet and summoned the accused
persons.

10. It appears from the records that
Anticipatory Bail Applications were filed
by the applicants and the same were
deferred by Special Judicial Magistrate
(CBI),
Ghaziabad
vide
order
dated
14.3.2024 on certain defects in the said
anticipatory bail applications. Aggrieved by
the said orders dated 14.3.2024 an
Application U/S 482 No. 11034 of 2024
(Mukul Jain and another vs. Central Bureau
of Investigation) was filed before this Court
which was disposed of vide order dated
06.8.2024 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court keeping it open for the applicants
to raise their objections before the court
concerned on the date fixed regarding
jurisdiction to decide the anticipatory bail
application filed by the applicants and the
court concerned was directed that before
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
161
deciding the application for anticipatory
bail filed by the applicants on merits, it
shall first answer this question and then
proceed with the matter. The order passed
therein is extracted herein below:-

"Heard
Mr.
Manish
Gupta,
Advocate along with Mr. Shiv Sagar Singh,
the learned counsel for applicants and Mr.
Gyan Prakash Srivastava, the learned
Deputy Solicitor General of India assisted
by Mr. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, the learned
counsel representing C.B.I.

This application under Section
482 CrPC has been filed challenging the
order dated 14.03.2024, passed by Special
Judge,
C.B.I.
Court,
Ghaziabad
in
Anticipatory Bail Application nos.1918 of
2024 and 1919 of 2024, whereby court
below
has
deferred
the
hearing
of
anticipatory bail applications filed by
applicants on the ground that there are
certain defects in the applications for
anticipatory bail filed by applicants.

Learned counsel for applicants
contends that though first information
report which was lodged against applicants
was
also
under
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act but, subsequently, C.B.I.
has submitted the police report dated
30.12.2023 in terms of Section 173 (2)
CrPC (charge-sheet), but the applicants
have not been charge-sheeted under the
Prevention of Corruption Act.

It is further contended by the
learned counsel for applicants that during
the
pendency
of
anticipatory
bail
application filed by applicants, nonbailable warrants have been issued against
applicants.

However, the Court finds from
the record that subsequently, court below
has passed an order dated 14.03.2024
whereby it has been observed that though
applicants
were
repeatedly
given
opportunity to remove the defect but it
appears that they intentionally delaying the
proceedings therefore it directed that one
last opportunity is granted to the applicants
to remove the defects and further submit
affidavit
regarding
their
whereabouts
before court concerned. The above order
dated 14.03.2024 has not been challenged
in this application under Section 482 CrPC
by moving an amendment application.

Considering the above and also
the law laid down by the Apex Court in
Srikant Upadhyay And Others Vs. State of
Bihar And Another, 2024 SCC OnLine 282,
no interim protection can be provided by
this Court in favour of applicants, as nonbailable warrants have been issued against
applicants by court below.

Considering the facts as noted
herein-above, it is hereby directed that
court below shall decide the application for
anticipatory
bail
filed
by
applicants
bearing nos.1918 of 2024 and 1919 of 2024
on the next date fixed in aforementioned
applications for anticipatory bail. The
anxiety expressed by the learned counsel
for applicants is that the court hearing the
application
for
anticipatory
bail
of
applicants does not have jurisdiction to
decide the anticipatory bail. Admittedly, the
application for anticipatory bail was filed
by applicants before the Sessions Judge,
which has been transferred by the Sessions
Judge to the Special Judge, C.B.I. Court. It
is well settled that the Sessions Judge
cannot try the jurisdiction of Special Judge,
C.B.I. Court. However, it shall be open to
the applicants to raise their objection
before court below on the date fixed in the
matter regarding the jurisdiction to decide
the
anticipatory
bail
application
of
applicants and the court below is directed
that before deciding the application for
anticipatory bail filed by applicants on
162 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merits shall first answer this question and
then proceed with the matter.

With
the
aforesaid
direction/observation,
this
application
stands disposed off finally."

11.
The
Anticipatory
Bail
Application of the applicant no. 2/Priyanka
Jain
numbered
as
Anticipatory
Bail
Application No.690 of 2024, Registration
No. 1919 of 2024, stood rejected by the
court of In-charge, Special Judge (AntiCorruption), C.B.I., Ghaziabad vide order
dated 16.8.2024 on the ground that despite
granting time to the accused Priyanka Jain
to file her own affidavit in the same, no
such affidavit has been filed and thus
disposal of the said anticipatory bail
application
is
not
possible.
The
Supplementary Affidavit dated 22.10.2024
has been filed on behalf of the applicants
bringing on records the order dated
16.8.2024 passed in the said Anticipatory
Bail
Application
No.690
of
2024,
Registration No. 1919 of 2024, Priyanka
Jain vs. C.B.I. Although the perusal of the
order dated 06.8.2024 passed in the 482
Cr.P.C. petition filed on behalf of the
accused Mukul Jain and Smt. Priyanka Jain
is concerned, the same goes to show that
two
Anticipatory
Bail
Applications
numbered as Anticipatory Bail Application
No. 1918 of 2024 and 1919 of 2024 were
the subject matter therein, but the records
of the present case and the documents as
placed during arguments do not show the
fate of the anticipatory bail application of
the applicant no. 1/Mukul Kumar Jain as
there is nothing on record to show as to
what happened in the same.

12. At this point it would be
relevant once again to reiterate the fact that
Criminal Misc. Application U/S 482 No.
11034 of 2024 (Mukul Jain and another vs.
C.B.I.) was filed on behalf of both the
applicants challenging the order dated
14.03.2024
passed
in
the
said
two
anticipatory bail applications but the fate of
the anticipatory bail application filed on
behalf of the applicant no. 1/Mukul Kumar
Jain is not disclosed. Further a 3rd
Supplementary Affidavit dated 03.1.2025
has been filed on behalf of the applicants,
perusal of which particularly its paragraph
nos. 2, 3 and 4 would go to show that Red
Corner Notice was initiated against the
applicant by the Indian Authorities in
furtherance to the non bailable warrants
and a Blue Notice was issued for the
present offence in pursuance of which the
applicant was detained by the authorities in
Dubai on 02.1.2025 and was taken into
custody for a period of 15 days. Further
para-4 of the same goes to show that
request for extradition of the applicant in
India
has
also
been
made
by
the
Government. Even at this point of time, it
is relevant to state that the said affidavit is
vague inasmuch as it states that it has been
filed on behalf of the applicants and the
applicants in the present application u/s 482
Cr.P.C. are two accused being Mukul
Kumar Jain and Smt. Priyaka Jain but
paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 did not, in any
manner in specific terms, clarify as to
which of the applicant was detained and
taken into custody. The same only refers to
the accused as "the applicant". Annexure
No. SA-1 annexed to the same was perused
from which it then transpires that the
applicant no. 1 Mukul Kumar Jain was
detained. Paragraph nos. 2, 3 and 4 are
extracted herein below:-

"2. That during the pendency of
the instant application u/s 482 CrPC which
was preferred primarily on the ground that
the Ld. Trial Court has exceeded its
jurisdiction in trying the matter at hand
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
163
having no offence made out under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the
Applicant was detained by the authorities
in Dubai on 17.12.2024 and was taken into
custody on 19.12.2024 for a period of 15
days.

3. That the primary reason cited
by the authorities in Dubai for detention
and further custody is the requirement of
the Applicant by the Indian authorities
under a Red Corner Notice initiated further
to the NBW and the Blue Notice issued for
the offence under consideration in the
instant Application u/s Section 482 CrPC.
Copy
of
the
detention
and
custody
notice/proceedings are annexed herewith
and marked as Annexure SA-1 to the third
Supplementary Affidavit.

4. That the Applicant has not
committed any crime in Dubai and the
detention in Dubai is only on the ground of
the Red Corner Notice issued on the
recommendation of the Respondent CBI for
seeking the extradition of the Applicant in
India."

13. Further Annexure No. SA-2 of
the said supplementary affidavit goes to
show that the same is a judgement and
order dated 06.11.2024 passed by the
A.S.J./Special Judge, Special Court, AntiCorruption, CBI, Court No. 3, Ghaziabad
in Criminal Revision No. 217 of 2024,
Mukul Kumar Jain and another vs. CBI,
which was preferred against the order dated
01.3.2024 passed by the court of Special
Magistrate, CBI, Ghaziabad in Criminal
Case No. 06 of 2024, C.B.I. vs. Mukul Jain
and others, which was decided and the said
revision stood dismissed. A perusal of the
said judgement and order goes to show that
in its paragraph no. 2 that learned counsel
for the C.B.I. was heard and the entire
records including the precedents/circulars
supplied by the parties were considered. It
further shows that no one appeared on
behalf of the revisionist despite several
opportunities. The court then proceeded to
decide the revision on its merits on the
basis of material available before it. The
present application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has thus been filed by the
applicants before this Court with the
aforesaid prayers.

14. At the very outset, learned
counsel for the C.B.I. while placing
paragraph nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the
supplementary
counter
affidavit
dated
26.2.2025 has submitted that the present
application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the
order of cognizance dated 01.03.2024 and
all the consequential proceedings therein is
not
maintainable
inasmuch
as
the
applicants are not entitled to any relief as
they neither joined the investigation nor cooperated in the investigation and have
absconded till date. It is further submitted
that the applicants did not appear before the
trial court concerned despite issuance of
non-bailable warrants against them. It is
further submitted that Blue Notices have
been issued against them. It is submitted
that an Interpol Red Notice Control No. A12804/11-2024 dated 05.11.2024 has been
issued against the accused Mukul Kumar
Jain
and
published
by
the
Interpol
Secretariat
General
at
Lyon,
for
apprehension of accused Mr. Mukul Kumar
Jain. Further it is submitted that the NCB,
Abu Dhabi vide their E-mail dated
21.12.2024 has requested to send the
Extradition Request of accused Mukul
Kumar Jain through diplomatic channel and
an Extradition request for extradition of
Mukul Kumar Jain has been forwarded to
the Ambassador, Embassy of India, Abu
Dhabi by the Joint Secretary (CPV),
Ministry of External Affiaris, New Delhi
on 03.02.2025 requesting to submit the
164 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Extradition request to the concerned
authorities in UAE. It is further submitted
that Red Notice vide Control No. A12809/11-2024 dated 05.11.2024 has been
issued against the accused Priyanka and
published by the Interpol Secretariat
General at Lyon, for the apprehension of
accused
Priyanka
Jain.
The
accused
Priyanka Jain has been detained in Abu
Dhabi on the basis of said Notice.
Paragraph Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the said
affidavit are extracted herein below:-

"7. That it is pertinent to mention
that the reason why the 3rd supplementary
affidavit of the instant petition under
section 482 Cr.P.C. is being sworn by
deponent Sidhant Kumar Singh is because
both the accused /applicants i.e. Mūkul
Kumar Jain and Smt. Priyanka Jain are
absconding after commission of cognizable
offence. That the accused/applicants have
neither
joined
the
investigation
nor
cooperated
in
the
investigation
and
therefore are not entitled to any relief. It is
further submitted that pursuant to the
investigation in F.I.R. RC0072022A0001,
C.B.I. has filed a charge sheet against
accused Mukul Kumar Jain and Smt.
Priyanka Jain for commission of offences
punishable u/s 120 B, r/w 420, 468 & 471
1.P.C. and substantive offences thereof.
The accused applicants have neither joined
the investigation nor cooperated in the
investigation and have absconded. They did
not appear before the Ld. Trial Court despite
issuance of non-bailable warrants against
them. It is further submitted that BLUE
Notices have been issued against the
accused/applicants. That an Interpol Red
Notice Control No. A-12804/11-2024 dated
5th November, 2024 has been issued against
the accused Mukul Kumar Jain and
published by the INTERPOL Secretariat
General at Lyon, for the apprehension of
accused Mr. Mukul Jain. On the basis of Red
Notice Control No. A-12804/11-2024 dated
5th November, 2024, the accused Mukul
Kumar Jain has been located in United Arab
Emirates with Nationality (Republic of
VANUATU).
The
NCB,
Bahrain
has
intimated vide their E-mail dated 28
November 2024 about his presence in United
Arab Emirates. A copy of the E-mail dated 28
November, 2024 is enclosed herewith and
marked as Annexure SCA-1.

8. That, the pursuant to Interpol
Red Notice Control No. A-12804/11-2024
dated 5th November, 2024, the accused
Mukul Kumar Jain has been arrested in
United Arab Emirates on 18.12.2024. The
NCB, ABU DHABI vide their E-mail dated
23.12.2024 has requested to send the
Extradition Request of accused Mukul Kumar
Jain to UAE Central Authority (Ministry of
Justice) through diplomatic channels. A copy
of the said E-mail is enclosed herewith and
marked an Annexure SCA-2.

9. That, the Extradition Request for
extradition of accused Mukul Kumar Jain has
been forwarded to the Ambassador, Embassy
of India, Abu Dhabi by the Joint Secretary
(CPV), Ministry of External Affairs, New
Delhi on 03.02.2025 requesting to submit the
Extradition
request
to
the
concerned
authorities in UAE. It is further submitted
that Red Notice vide Control No. A12809/11-2024 dated 5th November, 2024
has been issued against the accused Priyanka
Jain and published by the INTERPOL
Secretariat General at Lyon, for the
apprehension of accused Priyanka Jain. That
based on Red Notice vide Control No, A12809/11-2024 dated 5th November, 2024,
accused Priyanka Jain has been detected in
Abu Dhabi, UAE."

15. Heard Sri Manish Gupta,
Advocate, holding brief of Sri Shiv Sagar
Singh and Sri Shiv Sagar Singh, learned
3 All. Mukul Kumar Jain & Anr. Vs. C.B.I.
165
counsels for the applicants, Sri Gyan
Prakash, learned Senior Advocate/Deputy
Solicitor General of India, assisted by Sri
Sanjay Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for
the C.B.I./Opposite Party and perused the
records.

16. Learned counsels for the
applicants submitted that submission of
charge sheet in the present matter is not
being challenged but the only challenge is
of jurisdiction in the matter and not on
merits. He submits that their submissions
are not at all touching the merits of the
matter but only on the ground of
jurisdiction.

17. Learned counsels for the
applicants submitted as under:-

(1) The First Information Report
is beyond jurisdiction as the same was
lodged at Dehradun whereas the matter
pertains to District Meerut.

(2) The present F.I.R. is the
second F.I.R. as an application for lodging
of F.I.R. was initially moved which was
returned and then the present application
was given which was registered.

(3) Cognizance and issuance of
non-bailable warrants are beyond territorial
jurisdiction.

(4) The order dated 06.8.2024
passed in Application U/S 482 No.11034 of
2024 by this Court has not been complied
with by the Special Judge and an order
dated 16.8.2024 has been passed.

(5) The judgement and order of
the Additional Sessions Judge concerned
dated 06.11.2024 dismissing the said
revision is against the jurisdiction of the
court.

(6) The present petition be
allowed and prayers as prayed for by the
applicants be granted.
18. Learned counsel for the C.B.I.
submitted as under:-

(1) The prayer in the present
petition is vague inasmuch as there is a
challenge to the cognizance order and all
the proceedings but the charge sheet is not
being challenged and the only challenge of
the order of cognizance on the basis of
jurisdiction at this stage cannot be looked
into.

(2) Even the judgement of the
revisional
court
dated
06.11.2024
challenging the order dated 01.03.2024
which is also challenged herein is not under
challenge.

(3) The order of cognizance
merges with the judgement and order of the
revisional court and thus the present
petition u/s 482 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable.

(4) The present petition be
dismissed.

19. After having heard learned
counsels for the parties and perusing the
records and looking to the facts of the
matter as stated above, at the very outset, it
is clear that the challenge in the present
matter has been argued to be not on merits
of the matter subsequent to filing of chargesheet, cognizance and summoning on it but
only on the ground of competence of the
court
concerned
on
the
ground
of
jurisdiction. The arguments that the present
F.I.R. is a second F.I.R. is fallacious
inasmuch no previous F.I.R. on the present
issue and subject matter has been lodged.
The present F.I.R. is the first report on the
issue and the matter. Further in so far as the
jurisdiction of the revisional court is
concerned, at the very inception it would be
relevant to point out that the order taking
cognizance dated 01.3.2024 which is also
impugned herein, was under challenge
therein and the said revision was dismissed.
166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The said dismissal was on merits and the
judgement and order passed therein clearly
mentions in it that despite repeated
opportunities no one appeared on behalf of
the revisionist and then the court proceeded
to examine the matter on merits and passed
the judgement and order therein. The court
was seized with the said revision and it has
decided the same on its merit as despite
several opportunities no one appeared on
behalf of the revisionist. The same is in
consonance with the settled principles of
law. In so far as non-compliance of the
order dated 06.8.2024 passed in the said
Application U/S 482 No.11034 of 2024 of
the applicants is concerned, there is nothing
on record to show that as to what happened
in the anticipatory bail application of the
applicant no. 1/Mukul Kumar Jain.