Page 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURSIDCITON CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.  784 OF 2017

(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No.10161 of 2016)

B.N. SRIVASTAVA  …APPELLANT  

VERSUS

CBI, EOU-IV, NEW DELHI          …RESPONDENT

O  R  D  E  R

S.ABDUL NAZEER, J.

1 Leave granted.

2 The  application  filed  by  the  appellant  was  allowed  by  the

Special  Judge,  Prevention  of  Corruption,  C.B.I.,  Ghaziabad,  in

Special Case No.05 of 2012, dated 28th April, 2016, subject to the

following conditions:

“1 The  applicant/accused  will  not  tamper  with the evidence during the trial. 2 The  applicant/accused  will  not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness. 3 The applicant/accused will  personally appear before this trial court on the date fixed. 4 The applicant/accused will  surrender/deposit his passport in the court.

1

Page 2

Accused/applicant Brijesh Narayan Srivastava (B.N. Srivastava) will furnish two personal bonds of Rs. 50,000/- with two bail sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court.

Since the allegations against the accused are too  serious,  causing  heavy  financial  losses  to  the government, therefore, the accused will deposit Rs. 50 lakh in the court within four weeks from the date of his release on bail.”  

3 The appellant challenged the condition imposed in the order

for depositing Rupees fifty lakh as precondition while granting bail

before  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in

Crl.M.A.No.16764 of 2016.  In the said case an interim order was

passed on 31st May, 2016 staying the imposition of condition of the

deposit  of  Rupees  fifty  lakh  subject  to  the  appellant  depositing

Rupees  ten  lakh  within  one  month  from the  date  of  the  order.

Accordingly, the appellant has deposited a sum of Rupees ten lakh.

The  High  Court  by  its  order  dated  11th November,  2016  has

dismissed  the  application  filed  by  the  appellant  challenging  the

aforesaid order.   

4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

5 It is clear that the appellant has already deposited a sum of

Rupees ten lakh in terms of an interim order passed by the High

2

Page 3

Court.  It  is  also  clear  from  the  materials  on  record  that  the

co-accused, namely, B.N. Yadav and R.K. Singh have been granted

bail without a condition being imposed upon them for depositing

the amount. The appellant has been in custody for more than four

years.  In the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the

view that the Special Court was justified in granting the bail to the

appellant.  However, the condition imposed by the court below for

depositing Rupees fifty lakh is onerous. The appellant has already

deposited Rupees ten lakh, which is sufficient for granting bail to

him.  Therefore,  direction issued by the trial  court for deposit of

Rupees fifty lakh for grant of bail is accordingly modified.

6 The appellant shall be released on bail if he satisfies the other

conditions  imposed  by  the  Special  Court  in  its  order  dated  28 th

April, 2016.  

7 The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

    …………………………………J.     (J. CHELAMESWAR)

    …………………………………J.

New Delhi;     (S. ABDUL NAZEER) April 25, 2017.

3