# Pradeep Shukla v. C.B.I. Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 617
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-05-12
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 22648 of 2013
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradeep-shukla-v-c-b-i-opp-party-42858
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII-Rules-18Application for extension of bail-on
second bail on medical ground interim
bail granted for six month-extension of
bail
application
filed-based
upon
computer information by High Courtonce second bail application disposed ofnothing further remains-can not be
treated pending application-extension
application
-held
not
maintainablewarning given to registry from giving
such information.

Held: Para-24 & 25

## Text

2 All] Pradeep Shukla Vs. C.B.I.
617

8. It is pertinent to mention that
wherever any judgment, order and decree is
likely to visit a party with civil consequences
and the same is under challenge, normally
pending adjudication it is always better to
stay the effect and operation of such an order.
Thus, the appellate court in exercise of its
inherent power has not committed any error
in passing the impugned order.

9. The said impugned order is only
an interlocutory order which is operative
only till the disposal of the appeal for
which a date has been fixed. It does not
has the effect of deciding any substantive
rights of the parties which may require
any interference in exercise of extra
ordinary jurisdiction of this Court.

10. In view of the above, I find no
merit in the petition and it is accordingly
dismissed with no orders as to costs.

11. The writ petition is dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Crl. Misc. IInd Bail Application No. 22648
of 2013

Pradeep Shukla ...Applicant
Versus
C.B.I. ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudeep Harkauli

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anurag Khanna
High Court Rules-Chapter VIII-Rules-18Application for extension of bail-on
second bail on medical ground interim
bail granted for six month-extension of
bail
application
filed-based
upon
computer information by High Courtonce second bail application disposed ofnothing further remains-can not be
treated pending application-extension
application
-held
not
maintainablewarning given to registry from giving
such information.

Held: Para-24 & 25
24. Having recorded so, I find the
present
application
to
be
not
maintainable and, therefore, this Court
does
not
have
the
jurisdiction
to
entertain this application as per the ratio
of the judicial pronouncement of the
Apex Court in the case of Nazma Vs.
Javed Alias Anjum, (2013) 1 SCC 376,
and the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey
Vs. Udai Bhan Singh, (2008) 17 SCC 764.

25. The application, therefore, being not
maintainable, is accordingly rejected
without prejudice to the rights of the
applicant to move a proper regular fresh
bail
application
if
so
advised
in
accordance with law.

Case Law discussed:
(2013) 1 SCC 376; (2008) 17 SCC 764; (1980)
2 SCC 559; Crl. Appeal. 689 of 2014; (2013) 1
SCC 376; (2008) 17 SCC 764.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. This application to extend bail has
been filed on the assumption that Bail
Application No.22648 of 2013 as per the case
status report obtained from the computer
section of the High Court and even otherwise is
still pending. The said information received
from the computer section has been placed
before the Court.

2. The application, which arises out
of the aforesaid bail application, has been
618 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
placed before this Bench as matters
relating to the NRHM scam have been
nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to
this bench for hearing.

3. I have heard learned counsel for the
applicant and the learned Counsel for the
Central Bureau of Investigation at length and
have perused the contents of the orders passed
from time to time by this Court as well as by
the Apex Court. The applicant's First Bail
Application No.13938 of 2013 was considered
and rejected by a learned single Judge of this
Court on 31.5.2013. The applicant challenged
the same before the Apex Court in Special
Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4974 of 2013
which was withdrawn by the applicant and was
dismissed accordingly on 5.7.2013 by the
following order:-

"Mr. Rakesh Dwivedi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner, prays
that Crl. M.P. No.13625 of 2013 application
for permission to withdraw the Special leave
Petition be allowed. Mr. Luthra, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the
C.B.I., has no objection to that. Accordingly,
Crl. M.P. No.13625 of 2013 is allowed and
consequently, the Special Leave Petition shall
stand dismissed as withdrawn.

It will be open to the respondent to
apply to the Trial Court to proceed with
the trial at the earliest, preferably on dayto-day basis."

4. The second Bail Application
No.22648 of 2013 was filed praying for bail
on the grounds of continuing ailment and the
medical treatment that was required to be
undergone by the applicant apart from other
grounds. The Central Bureau of Investigation
filed a counter-affidavit and also took a plea
that ailment by itself cannot be a ground for
grant of bail. The C.B.I. also contested the
second bail on the ground that since the first
Bail Application had been rejected on merits
and the Special Leave Petition filed by the
applicant had been withdrawn, the second
Bail could not be entertained by this Court.

5. The learned single Judge held that
second bail Application was maintainable as
the SLP had been withdrawn and had not
been decided on merits. This finding recorded
by the learned single Judge in the order dated
31.10.2013 has not been put to any further
challenge by the C.B.I.

6. On the issue relating to the second
Bail being entertained on medical grounds, the
learned Judge observed that the C.B.I. has not
challenged the deteriorating medical condition
of the applicant and on a consideration of the
said fact, the applicant was found to be
entitled for being enlarged on "Short Term
Bail" on medical grounds so that he may
receive proper treatment. The order passed by
the learned single Judge in the later part of
paragraph No.14 of the said order is extracted
here under:

"Thus in the interest of justice, the
applicant can be enlarged on short term bail
on medical ground so as to enable him to
get proper treatment and in order to ensure
the speedy and fair trial, certain directions
can be imposed upon the applicant.
Therefore, without touching the merit of the
case,
the
applicant
be
enlarged
on
interim/short term bail for a period of six
months to enable him to get proper medical
treatment."

7. Thereafter, the learned single
Judge passed the operative part of the bail
order contained in Paragraph No.15
thereof which is extracted here under:-

"15.Let the applicant Pradeep Shukla
involved in R.C. 220 2012 E 0002 under
2 All] Pradeep Shukla Vs. C.B.I.
619
section 120B I.P.C. read with 420, 468, 471
I.P.C. and section 13(2) PC Act read with
section 13(1)(d) PC Act, P.S. CBI, EOU -IV,
EO II, New Delhi be released on short term
bail for six months on his executing a personal
bond and two sureties each in the like amount
to the satisfaction of the C.B.I. Court on
following conditions.

1.That the applicant will not try to
influence the witnesses and will cooperate
in the speedy and expeditious trial before
the C.B.I. Court.

2.That the applicant will produce the
progress/status report from the attending
physician or surgeon regarding his health
after every two months.

3.That the applicant will not leave
the country without prior permission of
the Court."

8. It is in the aforesaid background
that the present application has been filed
which is a Misc. Application praying for
extending the said period of bail in view
of the continuing ailment of the applicant.

9. To substantiate his submissions, Sri
R. Basant, learned Senior Counsel, submits
that the applicant is the victim of political
cross fire as a result whereof he was
implicated in this case and has now landed up
in troubled waters on account of his poor
physical condition and serious ailment. The
applicant as per expert Medical diagnosis is
suffering from spinal tumour due to growth
detected between vertebrae T4 & T5,
recurring Transient Ischemic Attacks and
Cardiac Artillery Disorder. Sri Basant has
invited the attention of the Court to various
documents and prescriptions from several
hospitals to submit that in spite of the order
dated 31.10.2013, the applicant continued to
receive treatment and was discharged from
hospital
only
on
3.12.2013.
He
has
continuously been admitted to hospital on
several occasions even thereafter and the the
aforesaid diseases with which the applicant is
suffering would leave no room for doubt and
his deteriorating health condition, which fact
remains undisputed by the C.B.I., has made
him susceptible to conditions that are
threatening to life. He has cited an authority of
neurology and has also raised his submissions
inviting the attention of the Court to the
continuing medical unfitness of the applicant
that is so serious that the applicant deserves to
be continued on further bail.

10. The issue of consideration of merits
of the ailment would arise only if the present
application is found to be maintainable. The
reason is simple, namely the application would
be maintainable if the Bail Application itself is
treated to be pending as urged by the learned
counsel for the applicant. Learned Counsel had
been apprised about the two decisions of the
Apex Court in the case of Nazma Vs. Javed
Alias Anjum, (2013) 1 SCC 376, and the case
of Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs. Udai Bhan
Singh, (2008) 17 SCC 764, where the
observations indicate clearly to the effect that a
misc. application in a disposed of matter in a
criminal case would not be maintainable as per
the statutory law prescribed. It is this objection
that had been raised by the Bench itself on the
previous occasion that the learned Counsel had
been called upon to answer.

11. Sri Basant, therefore, submits that
what was intended by the order dated
31.10.2013, particularly the observations
contained in paragraph Nos. 14 and 15
extracted herein above, has to be looked into
holistically and not in isolation. He submits
that the Court clearly intended to grant a bail
as an interim measure on the ground of
facilitating proper medical treatment and,
620 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
therefore, the application has been rightly
understood by the computer section of the
High Court to be pending. He contends that,
however, he does not intend to canvass that
the Court is bound to accept the said
indication of the computer section but what
can be reasonably inferred is that the word
"interim" having been used by the Court, and
there being no concept of short-term bail, the
application should be treated to be pending
particularly in view of the second condition
imposed in the order dated 31.10.2013. He
submits that submission of medical reports
was intended to be placed before this Court
and, therefore, the bail application cannot be
treated to have been finally disposed of. The
only legitimate inference, therefore, that can
be drawn is that the matter was yet to be
disposed off after a periodical assessment, and
even if there is a doubt about pendency, then
in the back ground aforesaid, benefit should
enure to the applicant by adequately
protecting the liberty of the applicant more so
when the trial is moving at a snail's pace.

12. The submission is that the applicant
was under a bona fide belief of the pendency
of the said bail application and the semantic
inadequacy of the language, if any, in the
order dated 31.10.2013 should enure to the
benefit of the applicant. It is urged that the
applicant had moved the extension application
well within time before the expiry of 6 months
on 24.4.2014 with a clear averment that the
applicant had neither violated any terms of the
bail or has done nothing objectionable.
Learned Counsel contends that the powers of
this Court even otherwise under Section 482
Cr.P.C. are clearly attracted in such a
situation. He further submits that as a matter
of protection, the applicant is also moving a
third bail application, even assuming though
not admitting, that the present application is
not maintainable. On an over all view of the
matter particularly the ailment of the
applicant, if the liberty of the applicant is
curtailed, there is every likelihood of the
applicant not receiving appropriate medical
assistance for the diseases from which he is
suffering, and in the event of refusal, there is
every likelihood of an irreversible loss being
suffered by the applicant.

13. It is contended that apart from this,
in such a piquant situation, where the third
bail application is not likely to be entertained
as per Chapter-VIII Rule 18 immediately,
compassion should be shown by this Court
to entertain this application for extending the
bail further so as to make available the
applicant the medical facilities effectively. It
is submited that the applicant is cooperating
with the trial and has not abused any of the
conditions imposed in the order dated
31.10.2013. Consequently, this Court may
take a compassionate view in this piquant
situation and entertain this application at a
juncture when where the applicant would be
taken into custody without any opportunity
to pursue a fresh bail application.

14. Opposing this application, Sri
Anurag Khanna submits that the applicant's
bail had already been rejected on merits on
31.5.2013 which stands affirmed by the Apex
Court after the withdrawal application was
disposed off on 5.7.2013. He further submits
that the second bail was filed with all prayers
including the ground of medical ailment and
the Court vide order dated 31.10.2013 chose
only to grant a short term bail for a limited
period of 6 months only. He, therefore,
contends that the bail application stood
disposed of and no relief in the second bail
application any further remained to be granted
or considered subsequently. He submits that
much capital is being made out by the learned
Counsel from the second condition imposed
in the order dated 31.10.2013 which was
clearly meant to be reported to the C.B.I. court
2 All] Pradeep Shukla Vs. C.B.I.
621
and not this Court. He contends that the
learned Counsel for the applicant cannot
dispute the legal proposition that there is no
concept of a short-term bail and, therefore,
even assuming that the word "interim" has
been used in the order dated 31.10.2013, it
only reflects the intention of the Court to bail
out the applicant on medical grounds for a
short period of 6 months only. According to
him, the application stood finally disposed of
by the order dated 31.10.2013 and any
information obtained by the applicant from
the computer section is absolutely misleading
and is not authentic.

15. Sri Khanna submits that he has
instructions to state that in case this Extension
Application is being treated by this Court to
be maintainable, then in that event the C.B.I.
proposes to file a detailed counter-affidavit on
the merits of such claim of extension. Sri
Khanna submits that the learned Counsel for
the applicant is not correct in his submission
in construing the contents of order dated
31.10.2013 and there is no reason to believe
that the applicant was unaware of the correct
gist of the bail order dated 31.10.2013. He
submits that the applicant cannot take any
undue advantage on the plea of ignorance of
law as he is well assisted by efficient counsel,
who are aware of the legal position. The
submission, therefore, is that the extension
application is not maintainable.

16. Sri Basant, on the issue of
consideration of such matters and on the
meaning of the word "custody" has relied
on the Apex Court decision in the case of
Niranjan Singh and another Vs. Prabhakar
Rajaram Kharote and others, (1980) 2
SCC 559, as explained in the latest
decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Sandeep Kumar Bafna Vs. State of
Maharashtra
and
another,
Criminal
Appeal No.689 of 2014, decided on
27.3.2014. Sri Basant submits that the
High Court should not be influenced by
any external media reports magnifying the
nature of the alleged scam so as to curtail
the liberty of the applicant which
otherwise is impermissible in law.

17. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having considered the
aforesaid submissions, it is clear that the first
bail application of the applicant before the
High Court was considered on merits and
rejected on 31.5.2013. The applicant filed a
Special Leave to Appeal that was dismissed as
withdrawn in terms as contained in the order
of the Apex Court dated 5.7.2013 where after
the second bail application was filed. The
second bail Application was considered by the
learned single Judge without touching the
merits of the case purely on medical grounds
and on the footing that the C.B.I. has not
challenged the deteriorating medical condition
of the applicant. Not only this, the Court
proceeded on a presumption that the applicant
can be enlarged for a short-term on bail on
medical grounds. As canvassed by Sri Basant
and as understood by the law of the land, the
Criminal Procedure Code or any law for the
time being in force does not acknowledge the
existence of a concept of a short-term bail.
The issue, therefore, is as to whether the order
dated 31.10.2013 is an interim order of bail or
not?

18. In my considered opinion, even
if it is a bail for an interim period, the
entire tenor of the order would leave no
room for doubt that the applicant was let
off for 6 months only on medical grounds.
The tenor of the language employed
reflects
a
unhesitant
disposal
with
conditions without any direction to place
the
matter
again
for
further
reconsideration
by
the
Court.
As
suggested, the order is not a perpetual
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
retention of any discretion to be exercised
on an interval of six months in the same
application like a festive announcement.

19. There is nothing like a renewal in
the same application as it would amount to
restoring the same application and reanimate
the same. This resumption is not permissible
after a pause or a rest. On the facts as
discussed above, the application cannot be
revived by reinforcements of subsequent
facts relating to medical grounds after the
order dated 30.10.2013 through an extension
application. The fresh grounds of continuing
ailment can be made a ground for a fresh bail
but such facts which were not available
before cannot be pressed into service for a
reopening and reconsideration in the same
application as it would set up a perpetual
precedent to file an application in the same
bail application that would go contrary to the
correct procedure of law.

20. The order dated 31.10.2013
disposing off the second bail application does
not offer more than what it recites and this
Court is not required to read more than what is
written therein. To read between the lines to
find out an intention would be adding more
than what is transcribed. The order is not
benevolent to the extent as suggested by the
learned Counsel. The language of the order
brooks no mystery for any further interpretation
nor can one suspect or doubt the clarity of it
which is as clear as a window pane.

21. To my mind, the learned Judge had
not left anything to be decided in future and
the application stood disposed of on
31.10.2013 finally. There is yet another reason
to conclude the above, namely, the prayer
made by the applicant was not of either a
short-term bail or an interim bail and,
therefore, it was not the case of either of the
parties before the learned Judge to consider
the grant of an interim or a short-term bail.
The learned Judge, who disposed of the
matter on 31.10.2013, exercised his judicious
discretion to grant a bail for 6 months
especially
on
medical
grounds.
The
description of the bail either as interim or
short-term, in my opinion, is absolutely
immaterial for the purpose of status of the bail
application. The application had been
considered after the counter-affidavit had been
filed by the C.B.I. and after full scale
arguments. The learned Judge, therefore, in
my opinion, had disposed of the application
finally and nothing remained pending to be
reconsidered by the High Court in the same.

22. The argument, which has been
raised on the strength of the information
given
by
the
computer
section,
is
unacceptable inasmuch as the entire ordersheet of the bail application as maintained by
the High Court and the endorsements made,
do not indicate the status of this application
to be pending. Sri Basant submits that the
order-sheet even otherwise does not make
even an endorsement of a final disposal. I am
unable to accept this contention inasmuch as
on 2.10.2013, the entire bail application was
heard after Affidavits were exchanged and
orders were reserved. The learned single
Judge has not issued any direction to the
office so as to presume that the bail
application shall again be listed for orders
after 6 months. In the absence of any such
indication in the order dated 31.10.2013, the
raising of any such presumption would be
incorrect and against the records.

23. It is not understood as to how the
computer section was showing the status of
the case to be pending but it goes without
saying that the case status report which is
issued by the computer section clearly
contains a disclaimer that it is not authentic or
certified copy of the order regarding the status
2 All] Smt. Arti Devi Vs. District Judge Siddharthnagar & Ors.
623
of a case. To remove any doubts it was
open to the learned counsel for the
applicant to have filed a question-answer,
the provisions whereof are available under
the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, and
the applicant would have been informed
about the correct legal status of the
disposal of the application. Thus, to argue
that the applicant could draw a legitimate
inference from such information of the
computer section of the High Court does
not appear to hold water. The clear
intention of the learned Judge, while
passing the order on 31.10.2013, was to
bail out the applicant only for a period of 6
months and nothing further. There is,
therefore, no occasion to brook any doubt
about the same or extend the benefit
thereof to the applicant.

24. Having recorded so, I find the
present application to be not maintainable
and, therefore, this Court does not have the
jurisdiction to entertain this application as
per the ratio of the judicial pronouncement
of the Apex Court in the case of Nazma
Vs. Javed Alias Anjum, (2013) 1 SCC 376,
and the case of Rakesh Kumar Pandey Vs.
Udai Bhan Singh, (2008) 17 SCC 764.

25. The application, therefore, being not
maintainable, is accordingly rejected without
prejudice to the rights of the applicant to move
a proper regular fresh bail application if so
advised in accordance with law.

26. The Registrar General is directed
to instruct the office not to furnish any
information without verifying the correct
status of any proceeding before this Court
as the information given by the computer
section in the present case has raised a
confusion even though the same is legally
unfounded
as
indicated
above.
The
Registrar General may, therefore, take steps
for issuing appropriate instructions to the
computer section and to the office in this
regard.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23319 of 2001

Smt. Arti Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge Siddharthnagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, Sri Kushal Kant

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ghanshyam Dubey, Jitendra
Kumar Yadav

C.P.C.-Order XXI- Exclusion of provisions
of Section 5 of limitation-Suit barred by
time-T/C not justified in entertaining
delay condonation application-it can be
entertained in appeal on revision by
virtue of section 3 of Act-Revisional
Court rightly interfered with such orderwarrant no interfere by Writ Court.

Held: Para-5
Section 5 applies to the stages subsequent
to institution of a valid suit and those
proceedings
which
are
construed
as
continuation of suit and not for seeking
condonation of delay in filing a time barred
suit. The applicability of Section 5 has been
excluded specifically to applications which
fall under Order XXI C.P.C. It shows that
even when the suit proceedings have come
to an end, in execution proceedings also
Section 5 shall not be applicable. A suit if
otherwise is barred by time and is not saved
by other provisions of Sections 4 and 6 to
24 of Act, 1963 then it shall not be
entertainable by the Court and has to be
dismissed in view of the obligation created