AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjana Prakash, J.—Heard Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Senior Advocate for the Vigilance.
The Petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 9.12.2010 passed by the Special Court-ll, Vigilance, Patna in Special Case No. 6 of 2007 arising out of Vigilance P.S. Case No. 1 of 2007, by which an application u/s 205 Code of Criminal Procedure filed on their behalf has been dismissed.
Whereas the Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, I find that they are both resident of Patna and, therefore, I do not find any justification for allowing the application on their behalf. The same is dismissed.
As for Petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, there is no dispute that they were not named in the first information report nor are they directly connected with the offence and reside in far of places and, therefore, the privilege of Section 205 Code of Criminal Procedure should be extended to them.
In view of such, the application is allowed with regard to Petitioner Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6. However, they shall give an undertaking before the court that they shall appear before the court as and when they are required to do so and shall not default in doing so. In case they default in presenting themselves on any date, they are required by the court non-bailable warrant of arrest shall be issued against them forthwith.
Application stands allowed- in part.