{"id":217775,"date":"2007-11-30T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-11-29T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007"},"modified":"2016-04-22T06:05:58","modified_gmt":"2016-04-22T00:35:58","slug":"rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: H S Bedi<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: S.B.Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  1172 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nRajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav\n\nRESPONDENT:\nCBI through its Director\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nS.B.SINHA &amp; HARJIT SINGH BEDI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>JUDGMENT<\/p>\n<p>O R D E R <\/p>\n<p>CRL.M.P. NO. 9066 and 11845 OF 2007<br \/>\n            IN<br \/>\nCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1172 OF 2006<\/p>\n<p>HARJIT SINGH BEDI, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>1.\tThis application for bail has been filed directly in<br \/>\nthis court on the following grounds:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)\tthat the appellant has been in custody for more<br \/>\nthan seven years and that his conduct in jail has<br \/>\nbeen exemplary;\n<\/p>\n<p>2)\tthat on account of the death of his father, there<br \/>\nis nobody available to him to pursue the present<br \/>\ncase,<\/p>\n<p>3)\tthat no inculpatory evidence has come on<br \/>\nrecord justifying his continued incarceration,<\/p>\n<p>4)\tdespite the orders of this Court from time to<br \/>\ntime, the trial was no where near completion and,<br \/>\nfinally,<\/p>\n<p>5)\tthat his medical condition required sophisticated<br \/>\nlife saving treatment which was only possible<br \/>\noutside jail.\n<\/p>\n<p>2.    We are of the opinion that in the light of the facts<br \/>\nthat several bail applications filed by the appellant<br \/>\nraising almost similar issues have been rejected no case<br \/>\nfor release on bail is made out.  We are also of the<br \/>\nopinion that the demise of the appellant&#8217;s father also does<br \/>\nnot ipso facto mean that he should be released on bail more<br \/>\nparticularly on account of the serious charges against him.<br \/>\nWe are therefore left with the last two points for<br \/>\nconsideration.\n<\/p>\n<p>3.   Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant has very strenuously urged that despite the<br \/>\ndirections of this Court in Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu<br \/>\nYadav  vs. CBI through its Director (2007) 1 SCC 70 while<br \/>\ndismissing one of the bail applications filed by the<br \/>\nappellant that the trial court was to ensure that the<br \/>\ndefence witnesses were examined on a day-to-day basis in<br \/>\naccordance with a fixed time schedule so that the trial was<br \/>\ncompleted as expeditiously as possible and the judgment<br \/>\ndelivered, the defence evidence had so far not been<br \/>\ncompleted on account of the delaying tactics on the part of<br \/>\nthe CBI and it was therefore appropriate that the appellant<br \/>\nbe released on bail.  It has also been pointed out that a<br \/>\ndirection had also been issued that as the appellant was<br \/>\nlodged in Tihar Jail in Delhi and the trial was being<br \/>\nconducted in Patna, video conference facilities be provided<br \/>\nto the appellant in order to enable him oversee the<br \/>\nproceedings in the trial but the said facilities were not<br \/>\nbeing made available to him as the equipment had been<br \/>\ndamaged. It has also been argued that as the appellant was<br \/>\ngrossly overweight, he was required to undergo some<br \/>\ninvasive surgical process which required special care and<br \/>\nnursing which could not be made available while the<br \/>\nappellant remained in custody.  Several documents in<br \/>\nsupport of the appellant&#8217;s medical condition have been<br \/>\nhanded over to us in Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>4.   In reply a counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI has<br \/>\nbeen filed and Mr. A. Sharan, learned ASG has drawn our<br \/>\nattention to the enclosures appended therewith to submit<br \/>\nthat the delay, if any, in the completion of the trial was<br \/>\non account of repeated applications filed by the appellant<br \/>\nin the trial court asking for one or other information or<br \/>\nthe recall of witnesses and as such it did not lie in him<br \/>\nto state that the trial was being inordinately delayed.  He<br \/>\nhas also pointed out that the CBI had completed its<br \/>\nevidence on 7.6.2006 and that a list of 43 defence<br \/>\nwitnesses had been given by the appellant of whom only a<br \/>\nfew had been examined and the case had been adjourned time<br \/>\nand again at the instance of the accused or to secure the<br \/>\npresence of the remaining defence witnesses.  He has also<br \/>\nsubmitted that in the light of Sections 273 and 317 of<br \/>\nCr.P.C the trial could go on even if an accused was not<br \/>\npersonally present and as such directions should be given<br \/>\nby this court that notwithstanding the fact that the video<br \/>\nconference facility was out of order the court should go<br \/>\nahead and complete the trial.   He has also pleaded that<br \/>\nthe appellant had been referred to arguably the best<br \/>\nmedical facility in Delhi i.e. All India Institute of<br \/>\nMedical Sciences (AIIMS) and that all medical aid would be<br \/>\nprovided to him as per his needs.\n<\/p>\n<p>5.    We have heard learned counsel for the parties and<br \/>\ngone through the record very carefully.  In the cited case<br \/>\nit has been observed that the appellant had filed bail<br \/>\napplications ad nauseam in the High Court and in this Court<br \/>\nand this amounted to a misuse of the legal process and it<br \/>\nhad accordingly been ordered that no further bail<br \/>\napplication on his behalf be entertained by any Court.  An<br \/>\napplication for review was thereafter filed in the<br \/>\naforesaid matter and was allowed on 27.4.2007 only to the<br \/>\nextent that &#8220;in the event any occasion arises, the<br \/>\npetitioner may move this Court for grant of bail&#8221;.  The<br \/>\npresent application filed within a month of that date, is<br \/>\nyet another in continuation of the series of applications<br \/>\nraising almost identical issues which have already been<br \/>\nrejected by this Court.  However, as some additional points<br \/>\nhave been raised, we must deal with them as well.  It is<br \/>\nclear from the orders that have been put on record and the<br \/>\nadditional counter affidavit on behalf of the CBI sworn by<br \/>\nSh. Pyare Lal Meena, Additional Superintendent of Police<br \/>\nCBI, that the defence evidence  had not been completed<br \/>\nbecause the defence had often sought adjournments or the<br \/>\ndefence witnesses had not been present.  We find from a<br \/>\nperusal of the Zimni orders of the trial court from<br \/>\n2.5.2007 to 20.9.2007 that the defence has been<br \/>\nprocrastinating in the matter and not permitting the<br \/>\ndefence evidence to proceed to its conclusion.  It is true<br \/>\nthat on a few occasions the trial had been adjourned on<br \/>\naccount of the non-availability of the video conference<br \/>\nfacility whereas the record reveals that the adjournments<br \/>\nhad largely been sought either by the co-accused Anil Kumar<br \/>\nYadav or the appellant, on one pretext or the other.  It is<br \/>\nalso clear that several miscellaneous applications have<br \/>\nbeen filed by the appellant praying for a recall of<br \/>\nwitnesses and as they have been rejected the matters are in<br \/>\nthe High Court by way of appeal\/revision.\n<\/p>\n<p>6.    Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the<br \/>\nappellant has however submitted that the appellant was only<br \/>\nexercising his legal rights in accordance with law and<br \/>\ncould therefore not be faulted on that account.  We agree<br \/>\nwith the learned counsel to the extent that the appellant<br \/>\nwas fully justified in exercising his legal rights but it<br \/>\ndoes not then behove him to say that the trial was being<br \/>\nunduly delayed.  On the other hand, as has already been<br \/>\nnoted above, adjournments have been taken time and again<br \/>\nfor the completion of the defence evidence whereas Mr.<br \/>\nSharan has, on the contrary, made a statement that the CBI<br \/>\nwould complete its arguments within a week of the<br \/>\ncommencement thereof.\n<\/p>\n<p>7.   We have also carefully gone through the appellant&#8217;s<br \/>\nmedical papers that have been produced before us in court.<br \/>\nWe are of the opinion that they do not as of now justify<br \/>\nhis release on bail even on medical grounds the more so as<br \/>\nall facilities are being made available to him by the jail<br \/>\nauthorities.  We accordingly dismiss the application but<br \/>\nwhile doing so issue the following directions:\n<\/p>\n<p>1)\tEvery effort will be made to provide<br \/>\nVideo Conference Facilities to the<br \/>\nappellant but in the light of Sections<br \/>\n273 and 317 of the Cr.P.C , the trial<br \/>\nwill go on to its conclusion even if<br \/>\nthey are not available;\n<\/p>\n<p>2)\tthat in the event that the video<br \/>\nconference facilities are available, the<br \/>\nappellant would be allowed access to his<br \/>\nlawyers through the aforesaid facility<br \/>\nin addition for one hour on each day<br \/>\nthat the final arguments in the trial<br \/>\nproceed.\n<\/p>\n<p>3)\tthat the Tihar jail authorities will<br \/>\nensure that all the directions issued by<br \/>\nthe attending doctors with respect to<br \/>\nthe appellant will be observed<br \/>\nscrupulously ; and<\/p>\n<p>(4)\t\tshould the appellant&#8217;s medical<br \/>\ncondition require further orders from<br \/>\nthe Courts at a later stage, he would be<br \/>\nat liberty to approach this Court yet<br \/>\nagain.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 Author: H S Bedi Bench: S.B.Sinha, Harjit Singh Bedi CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1172 of 2006 PETITIONER: Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav RESPONDENT: CBI through its Director DATE OF JUDGMENT: 30\/11\/2007 BENCH: S.B.SINHA &amp; HARJIT [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-217775","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1381,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007","datePublished":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007"},"wordCount":1381,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007","name":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-11-29T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-22T00:35:58+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-ranjan-yadav-pappu-yadav-vs-cbi-through-its-director-on-30-november-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Ranjan Yadav @ Pappu Yadav vs Cbi Through Its Director on 30 November, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217775","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=217775"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/217775\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=217775"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=217775"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=217775"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}