Full Text
Translation output
$-66
*
+
IN THE HIGH COI]RT w.P.(cRL) r222l2orr
JAFFAR SADIQ NAYEEM
Through
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Preet Pal
Singh, Ms. Shikha Pandey, Mr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Advs.
VETSUS
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC/R-I with
Mr. A.K. Vali, Mr. Karan Bindra, Advs.
Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI/R-2.
Through
*
+
IN THE HIGH COI]RT w.P.(cRL) r222l2orr
JAFFAR SADIQ NAYEEM
Through
OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI..... Petitioner
Mr. Sanjeev Sachdeva, Sr. Adv. with
Ms. Smriti Sinha, Mr. Preet Pal
Singh, Ms. Shikha Pandey, Mr. Abhimanyu Chopra, Advs.
VETSUS
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondent
Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, CGSC/R-I with
Mr. A.K. Vali, Mr. Karan Bindra, Advs.
Mr. P.K. Sharma, SC for CBI/R-2.
Through
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MTIKTA GUPTA o
Crl.M.A. 10500/2011
06.09.20L1
Exemption allowed subject to just exception.
W.P.(CRL) 122212011 & Crl.M.A. 10499/2011 (stay)
I have heard the matter at length yesterday and today also. In the present case the Petitioner was granted bail by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, Kolkata. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court observed that once there was an order granting bail by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore the conduct of the CBI in seeking fresh w.P.(cRL) 1222/2011 page I of2
2011:DHC:17059 f waffant of arrest was abuse of the authority. The Petitioner was further directed to appear before the Learned ACMM, Delhi on 5th August, 20Il without fail and was granted bail till that time.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner could not appear before the Learned ACMM on the 5th August,20Il as he suffered from pain in the kidney due to renal stone on the 2nd August, 2011. He fugther states that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court he may be granted protection and he would appear before the Learned ACMM and file a fresh application for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the Respondent states that since the matter is now listed on 7'h October, 2OII before the Learned ACMM, Delhi the Petitioner may move an application for bail and the Respondents will take no coercive action against the Petitioner till 7ft Octob er,20Il.
In view of the statement of the leamed counsel for the Respondent no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
The petition and application are disposed of.
Order dasti. flr^lrrt.,e7-e
" MUKTA GUPTA,J
SEPTEMBER 06,20tl
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 1222/2011 page 2 of2
2011:DHC:17059
Crl.M.A. 10500/2011
06.09.20L1
Exemption allowed subject to just exception.
W.P.(CRL) 122212011 & Crl.M.A. 10499/2011 (stay)
I have heard the matter at length yesterday and today also. In the present case the Petitioner was granted bail by the Learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore, Kolkata. The matter was taken up before the Hon'ble Division Bench. The Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court observed that once there was an order granting bail by the Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Barrackpore the conduct of the CBI in seeking fresh w.P.(cRL) 1222/2011 page I of2
2011:DHC:17059 f waffant of arrest was abuse of the authority. The Petitioner was further directed to appear before the Learned ACMM, Delhi on 5th August, 20Il without fail and was granted bail till that time.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the Petitioner could not appear before the Learned ACMM on the 5th August,20Il as he suffered from pain in the kidney due to renal stone on the 2nd August, 2011. He fugther states that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Kolkata High Court he may be granted protection and he would appear before the Learned ACMM and file a fresh application for grant of bail.
Learned counsel for the Respondent states that since the matter is now listed on 7'h October, 2OII before the Learned ACMM, Delhi the Petitioner may move an application for bail and the Respondents will take no coercive action against the Petitioner till 7ft Octob er,20Il.
In view of the statement of the leamed counsel for the Respondent no further orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
The petition and application are disposed of.
Order dasti. flr^lrrt.,e7-e
" MUKTA GUPTA,J
SEPTEMBER 06,20tl
'ga' w.P.(cRL) 1222/2011 page 2 of2
2011:DHC:17059
JUDGMENT