Interim Order 66

Order Details: COPY OF ORDER
Pdf Text: CNR No. DLCT11-000420-2022
CBI vs. M. P. Singh & Ors. (Rajesh Mishra)
CBI No. 41/2022
21.08.2025
Present: Sh. A. K. Kushwaha, Ld. Sr. PP for CBI.
HIO/SI Aakash Srivastav also present.
Accused Rajesh Mishra present on bail.
Sh. Kanhaiya Singhal and Sh. Ajay Kumar, Ld.
Counsels for accused Rajesh Mishra.
The present accused viz. Rajesh Mishra was earlier
declared Proclaimed Offender. Prosecution witnesses whose
statements were recorded under Section 299, Cr.P.C. qua the
present accused were ordered to be summoned again so as to give
an opportunity to the accused to cross examine the witnesses. All
Prosecution Witnesses except PW 23 B.C. Rai and PW 24
Umeshwar Prasad have already been cross examined on behalf of
the present accused.
On last date of hearing i.e. 14.07.2025, accused Rajesh
Mishra, who was granted permission to stay in United States of
America till 20.10.2025, was directed to appear physically in
Court on next date of hearing i.e. 08.08.2025, when the matter
was listed for recording of Prosecution Evidence.
In compliance of the said directions, accused Rajesh
Mishra, in order to appear physically on 08.08.2025 landed in
Delhi on 07.08.2025. It is submitted by accused that when he
landed at IGI Airport, he was subjected to inhuman treatment
-- 1 of 4 --
initially by the immigration staff and thereafter by CBI, more
particularly by IO of the present case i.e. SI Aakash Srivastava.
An application under Section 15(2) of Contempt of Courts
Act was filed by the accused/applicant seeking initiation of
appropriate criminal proceedings against the investigating officer
of the present case.
Reply to the present application has been filed on behalf of
CBI. Same is taken on record. Copy supplied.
I have considered the facts stated in the application and
have also heard the accused/applicant as well as the IO.
It is submitted by Ld. Sr. PP for CBI as well as the IO that
as LOC was opened against the accused, therefore they had to
make the requisite enquiries for which the accused was subjected
to some questions. It is submitted by IO that as he was unaware
of the Orders passed by this Court on 14.07.2025, some
misunderstanding took place. He further submits that after going
through the records when he found that pursuant to Court’s
Orders, accused has landed, he released him.
In view of these facts and circumstances and during the
course of arguments, it is submitted by accused/applicant as well
as his counsel that the accused does not want pursue the present
application and seeks permission to withdraw the application. He
further submits that necessary directions be given to CBI not to
subject the applicant/accused to any uncalled for treatment once
he lands in Delhi or is travelling abroad pursuant to the directions
given of the Court.
In view of the request made, the application under Section
15(2) of Contempt of Courts Act, dated 08.08.2025, is dismissed
-- 2 of 4 --
as withdrawn. Necessary directions have been given to CBI to
make strict compliance of the Court Directions.
As it is required for the purposes of clarification not only
for the accused/applicant but also for CBI and the concerned
authorities regarding status of LOC, it is necessary to make the
following observations on the basis of material on record;
In the present case, it is apparent on perusal of the record
that on an application filed by the applicant/accused, Ld.
Predecessor of this Court
vide Orders dated 15.03.2024 had
permitted the accused to travel to USA from 21.04.2024 to
20.10.2024, subject to conditions mentioned in that Order itself,
one of which was that “
LOC of the accused is suspended till
20.10.2024”. On subsequent applications moved on behalf of the
applicant/accused, his stay in USA was extended for a further
period and lastly it has been extended till 20.10.2025 on same
terms and conditions, meaning thereby that LOC against him is
suspended till the said date i.e. 20.10.2025.
It is observed accordingly.
Let the matter be now listed for Recording of PE on
16.09.2025.
Considering the physical condition of PW-23 B.C. Rai,
who is Retired Chief Manager of Vijaya Bank and also the fact
that he is not in a position to travel to Delhi, let his Statement be
recorded through Video Conferencing as per VC Rules.
Let a Request Letter be sent to the concerned District
Judge having jurisdiction over the area where the witness i.e. PW
23 B.C. Rai is residing, to make necessary arrangements in the
Jurisdictional Court, so that his testimony can be recorded
through VC.
-- 3 of 4 --
Copy of this Order, as prayed, be given
Dasti to the
accused/applicant as well as to the IO.
(Kanwal Jeet Arora)
Principal District & Sessions Judge-
cum-Special Judge (PC Act) (CBI),
Rouse Avenue District Court
New Delhi/21.08.2025
-- 4 of 4 --