aas l,W a®n^ INTHE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR CR.M.P. N0. u OF 2010 ~? PETITIONER : ^p-;<^ -?^^ <--y:'<^:-:%^>^ .'.N ' -.l;'L • ^-' \~-^ Sunil Agrawal, S/o Shri Lajpati Rai Agrawal, aged about 39 years, R/o Jain Mandir Street, Yamuna Nagar (Haryana) (name of the petitioner not mentioned in cause title of impugned order) VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Central Bureau of Investigation through Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. Jabalpur Unit, Jabalpur, (M.P.) (instead of C.B.I. "State" mentioned in cause title of impugned order) PETITION UNDER SECTION-4g2 QF THE CODE QF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ». i. / \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR S.B.: HON'BLE SHRI MAMNDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA.J. Cr.M.P No.430/2010 PETITJONER Si-mU Agrawal Versus RESPONDENT Central Bureau Investigation of fPetition u/S 482 ofthe Cr.P.Q Appearauce: Shri Adil Minhaj, coiinsel for the petitioner. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, counsel for the respondent. ORAL- OKDBR (Passedon 18.8.2011) With tae consent ot' leamed counsel appearing for the parties, the petition is heard finally. 2. Thls petition under Section 482 of Ci'.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by order dated 24.6.2010 passed by fhe Special Judge (CBI) 85 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Crunmal Case No. 1/05 (State Vs. Satyanarayan Agrawal & Ors.), by which tfae petitioner's appBcation under Section 205 of Cr.P.C. has been rejected. 3. Leamed coiinsel for fhe petitioner submits that that the petitioner is facing trial for alleged commission of oflence under Section 413 of the IPC for the last more than 5 years. It is submitted that fhe petitioner is permanent resident of Yamima Nagar, Hariyana and he has been appearing in the trial throughout and fhere are no allegations of misuse of liberly of bail granted to him. Leamed ^l ^\ 1"^. -2- .,.*'..«" ^ counsel further submits fhat over last more than 5 yeai's, only 9 prosecution witnesses out of total number of 61 prosecutioa witnesses have been examined. He submits that the pace with whieh fhe trial is goiag on, it is not Ukely to be concluded in ne-ar future. Leamed counsel submjts that fhe petitioner has mentioned in his appBcation under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. that he is required to look after his old ailmg mofher and therefore he is entitted to appropriate exemption from appearance in the proceedmgs, on such conditions as may be imposed by (his Coiirt. 4. On fhe ofher haiid, leamed counsel for fhe respondent submits that the petitioner is involved in commlssion of pnrchase of stolen items which are used in fhe process of maniifacture tn the Bhflai Steel Plant. He furtfaer submits fhat oiily on the groiind of delay m trial, fhe petitioner cannot claim exempnon. It is aiso submitted that in the event exemption from appearance is granted, the petitioner may elope and jump baU also, which wffl adversely affect the case of the prosecution. He also submits that the case made oiit in the application regarding ailing mother is not supported by any dociiment/medical certtficate. 5. It is not in dispute fhat fhe trial has remained pendmg for over last 5 years. The petitioner is said to be resident of Yamim.a Nagar, Hariyana and tliis fact has also not beeu disputed. It has also not been disputed fhat there are as many as 61 cited witnesses proposed to be exainmed by fhe prosecution. Leamed counsel for fhe respondent could not bring to (he notice of this ^is ^ -3- Court any material to show that the petitioner, diiring last 5 years has on any occasion; misused fhe Uberty, which he enjoying by vulue of bail granted to him. The petitioner has been charged of commission ofoffence under Section 413 offhe IPC. 6. Takmg into consideration fhe totality of fhe arciimstances, nature of aUegations, delay in trial, grounds urged tn the application under Section 205 of the Cr.P.C. and the conduct of the petitioner dunng tnal, I am mclined to partly allow petitioner's prayer for exemption fl-om Iiis personal appearance before fhe trial Court. 7. Accordingly, fhe petitioner is exempted froin inaking his personal appearance before the trial Coiirt in the next two dates of hearing. However, on the third date of hearing of the case, fhe petitioner shall appear. This appearance may be repeated after next ta'o hearings, on which dates, fhe petitioner may be represented fhrough his counsel. 8. In case fhe trial is not concluded wifhin a period of one year for any reasons, not attributable to fhe petitioner, the petitioner would be at liberty to apply for permanent exemption from his personal appearance before the trial Court. 9. The aforesaid order is, however, subject to the condition that the petitioner shaU appear on such dates of hearing as he may be directed to appear by fhe trial Court, ifit considered necessary. 10. The petition is accordingly partly aUowed. Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava Judge ^raveeiL