17 Jun 2023 4:35 AM GMT
The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain the plea challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court that rejected anticipatory bail to Badri Shrestha, a former advisor of Lucknow’s Gomti River Front project, who was accused of huge corruption and large-scale irregularities in implementing the project.Shrestha had filed an anticipatory bail before the Allahabad High Court which...
The Supreme Court, on Friday, refused to entertain the plea challenging an order of the Allahabad High Court that rejected anticipatory bail to Badri Shrestha, a former advisor of Lucknow’s Gomti River Front project, who was accused of huge corruption and large-scale irregularities in implementing the project.
Shrestha had filed an anticipatory bail before the Allahabad High Court which was dismissed by it by a detailed judgment on 15th December, 2022. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Apex Court challenging the same. The Supreme Court had dismissed the SLP noting -
"After some hearing, learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner would present himself before the Trial Court and move for bail. He also submitted that the observations in the impugned order should not adversely impact the consideration of the application. It is clarified that in the event the petitioner applies for bail, the Trial Court shall consider and pass orders as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by the orders of the courts.”
However instead of surrendering or availing the liberty granted by the Apex Court, Shrestha moved a second anticipatory bail application before the High Court. While dismissing the said application, the High Court dealt with the limited scope of a second bail application. It observed -
“Second bail application/anticipatory bail application is to be considered only on limited ground. Change of law or some new facts cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused on anticipatory bail whose Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) got dismissed by the Supreme Court. Second application for anticipatory bail is neither review nor appeal. For deciding a second bail application, there is limited ground which is change of circumstance. Change of some judgments in between cannot be a ground for enlarging an accused for anticipatory bail application particularly when he consented to comply with the liberty granted by the Supreme Court in its order dated 07.02.2023.”
As the matter came up for hearing before a vacation Bench comprising Justice Hima Kohli and Justice Rajesh Bindal, on Friday, Justice Kohli warned the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Shrestha, at the very outset that, “Be ready for cost. This is an abuse of process. Keep that in mind and then argue. The High Court was generous enough to not impose cost, we are not so generous.”
The Senior Counsel submitted that he would withdraw the petition and comply with the previous order of the Supreme Court.
Accordingly, the Bench recorded in the order, “The Senior Counsel for the petitioner states on instruction that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the present petition and take steps to comply with the judgment dated 07.02.2023”.
Justice Kohli told the Senior Counsel, “You should have advised your client. Your client is playing with the law.”
[Case Title: Badri Shrestha v. CBI SLP(Crl) No. 7012/2023]
Click Here To Read/Download Order