In Bail Appln. 1683/2022 -DEL HC- Delhi High Court gives ultimatum to Usha Martin MD: Join CBI probe in 10 days or face arrest
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma [03-11-2023]

Read Order: Rajeev Jhawar V. Central Bureau of Investigation

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, November 6, 2023: In a recent development, the Delhi High Court has issued a stern ultimatum to Rajiv Jhawar, Managing Director of M/s. Usha Martin Ltd., in a CBI investigation case. The High Court gave him ten days to cooperate with the ongoing investigation or face legal consequences.

In the present case, Rajiv Jhawar, had filed an application, seeking an extension of the deadline to comply with the court's directions issued in a bail application order dated June 8, 2022.

The case revolved around allegations of attempting to influence a CBI investigation. Notably, Sh. N.M.P. Sinha, a former SP of CBI, and other individuals were accused of trying to manipulate an ongoing case. The CBI had registered the case under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code.

During the investigation process, a trap was set, leading to the arrest of key individuals and the recovery of substantial sums of money. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed against several individuals, including Jhawar. In response to the charges, Jhawar had filed an anticipatory bail application, which the Trial Court had dismissed. Fearing arrest, he had submitted another bail application. On June 2, 2022 (corrected on June 3, 2022), the court issued an order disposing of the bail application. The order stipulated directions for the applicant to join the investigation, with provisions for a seven-day prior notice in case of his arrest.

Following these developments, the applicant filed a Criminal Miscellaneous Case in the same bail application, seeking an extension of time to join the investigation. On June 8, 2022, the court allowed the extension due to the applicant's need to arrange medical treatment for his father in Singapore. Subsequently, the applicant filed another application requesting further time extension, citing an Interlocutory Application by Usha Martin Limited in the Supreme Court. This application became defective and was rendered inconsequential.

In the recent application, the applicant asserted that he had cooperated with investigative agencies and had responded to all summonses. However, he was unable to join the investigation on July 1, 2022, as directed by the June 8, 2022 order, due to procedural matters and the pending Interlocutory Application in the Supreme Court. Consequently, he sought a two-week extension, commencing from July 22, 2022, to join the ongoing investigation.

The single-judge bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma acknowledged the need for custodial interrogation of the applicant and the pending investigation when the chargesheet was filed. However, it was stated that the CBI could have requested the Trial Court to defer taking cognizance against the applicant or even chosen not to file any chargesheet against him. Instead, the CBI had requested the Trial Court to summon the applicant. This created a peculiar situation where the chargesheet was filed against the applicant without his arrest, and cognizance was taken against him.

The bench also noted that the applicant had not joined the investigation even after being granted two opportunities by the court. During the arguments, the CBI could not provide a satisfactory explanation for the urgency in filing the chargesheet when the investigation against the applicant was still pending. The bench found it peculiar that the CBI opposed anticipatory bail and obtained non-bailable warrants against the applicant while simultaneously filing a chargesheet against him and not opposing the taking of cognizance.

In light of these circumstances, the court issued a clear directive to the applicant, instructing him to join the investigation within ten days. Should he face arrest, he would be granted seven days to seek legal remedies. The court also emphasized that failing to meet the stipulated time for joining the investigation would forfeit his right to seek pre-arrest bail. Furthermore, any future application for an extension of time before the court would be considered barred due to the applicant's prior conduct.