Full Text
Translation output
$'^ 8 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CRLM.C. 2045/2011
CUSTOMS , Petitioner Tlirough Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, Adv.
CRLM.C. 2045/2011
CUSTOMS , Petitioner Tlirough Mr. P.C. Aggarwal, Adv.
VERSUS
KISHORE KUMAR Respondent
Through None
Through None
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT
ORDER o/„ 05.07.2011
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned District Judge as under:-
"Arguments were heard in the morning.
Since it had been argued that the accused/applicant was not cooperating, therefore, customs department be given more time to further interrogate the accused/applicant, if the department so wishes. The department should try to verify the other facts disclosed by the accused/applicant in his statement u/s 108
Customs Act.
Till next date of hearing, interim order shall continue.
Put up on 7.6.2011 for further arguments." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe matter is pending before the District judge since 07.6.201 land the respondent is also not cooperating in the investigation and therefore, the
Department has filed the present petition for vacation of interim stay.
He further submits that the interim protection was granted to the
2011:DHC:11397 respondent on 27.4.2011 and. thereafter, the matter was adjourned to
09.5.2011 for further arguments.
Inote that the interim protection given by the District Judge isfor the time being and arguments on the anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent has been going on. Lastly, the matter was listed on
27.6.2011 and adjourned for today, i.e. 05.7.2011 and the interim
\protection given on 27.4.2011 is still continued.
Since the District Judge has to pass the final order on the anticipatory bail application, therefore, 1consider the present case is filed pre-maturely. The petitioner should put his case before the District
Judge and get the final order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge that order, as and when requires.
The District Judge is directed to dispose of the anticipatory bail application expeditiously.
In view of the above directions, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J JULY 05,2011 KA 2011:DHC:11397
ORDER o/„ 05.07.2011
The petitioner has assailed the order dated 24.5.2011 passed by the learned District Judge as under:-
"Arguments were heard in the morning.
Since it had been argued that the accused/applicant was not cooperating, therefore, customs department be given more time to further interrogate the accused/applicant, if the department so wishes. The department should try to verify the other facts disclosed by the accused/applicant in his statement u/s 108
Customs Act.
Till next date of hearing, interim order shall continue.
Put up on 7.6.2011 for further arguments." It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner thatthe matter is pending before the District judge since 07.6.201 land the respondent is also not cooperating in the investigation and therefore, the
Department has filed the present petition for vacation of interim stay.
He further submits that the interim protection was granted to the
2011:DHC:11397 respondent on 27.4.2011 and. thereafter, the matter was adjourned to
09.5.2011 for further arguments.
Inote that the interim protection given by the District Judge isfor the time being and arguments on the anticipatory bail application filed by the respondent has been going on. Lastly, the matter was listed on
27.6.2011 and adjourned for today, i.e. 05.7.2011 and the interim
\protection given on 27.4.2011 is still continued.
Since the District Judge has to pass the final order on the anticipatory bail application, therefore, 1consider the present case is filed pre-maturely. The petitioner should put his case before the District
Judge and get the final order. The petitioner shall be at liberty to challenge that order, as and when requires.
The District Judge is directed to dispose of the anticipatory bail application expeditiously.
In view of the above directions, the petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SURESH KAIT, J JULY 05,2011 KA 2011:DHC:11397
JUDGMENT