VIMAL KUMAR BHARGAVA v. C.B.I. THRU. ITS INSPECTOR ANTI CORRUPTION DISTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
CRLR/416/2025 · 2025-04-11
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133829 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 133829 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20664 Court No. - 15 Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 416 of 2025 Revisionist :- Vimal Kumar Bhargava Opposite Party :- C.B.I. Thru. Its Inspector Anti Corruption Distt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Pranshu Agrawal Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Kumar Singh Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Pranshu Agarwal, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anurag Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I for the State and perused the records.
2. By means of the instant revision, the revisionist has challenged validity of an order dated 02.03.2025 whereby his discharge application was rejected. The orders passed by the trial court on 20.01.2015, 04.02.2025, 14.02.2025 and 10.03.2025 have been produced in para 16 of the memo of revision which reveals that the trial court had repetitively
directed the Investigating Officer to produce case diary before the Court.
3. In the order dated 10.03.2025 also, the trial court has recorded that on numerous earlier occasions the Investigating Officer had been directed to produce case diary but the Investigating Officer did not comply with the order of the trial court, which is seriously objectionable. Yet, the trial court proceeded to decide the discharge application of the revisionist, without the case diary having been produced and without the same having been perused by the trial court.
4. The learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that when the trial court had thought a perusal of the case diary
necessary for considering his plea for discharge, rejection of the plea for discharge without the case diary having been produced, is not proper.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent-CBI did not dispute this submission.
6. Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order dated 10.03.2025 is set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for deciding the plea of discharge of the revisionist afresh after a perusal of the case diary and after hearing submissions of the
learned counsel for the parties, in accordance with law.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent states that CBI will ensure that case diary is produced before the trial court on the next date fixed.
Order Date :- 11.4.2025 Pradeep/- Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench