Full Text
Translation output
% 07.01.2010
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the respondents.
+ Cont. Cas.CCrn No. 11/2009
This criminal contempt petition is preferred by the petitioner alleging that in spite ofanticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Bail Application No.703/2008 on 11.04.2008, the petitioner was arrested by the respondents when he appeared before the respondents for investigation, that too pursuant to the subsequent orders passed by the learned
Single Judge on the application preferred by the respondents for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted on 11.04.2008.
We note that when the petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2008, on the very next date the petitioner filed Crl.M.A. No.7692/2008. In the said application, in addition to making a prayer for his release, another specific prayer made is for initiating appropriate proceedings against S. Suresh, Senior Intelligence Officer, who arrested the petitioner as well as the other officials of the respondents/DRI.
It is specifically averred in this petition that in the said application notice has been issued. We are informed that the said Crl.M.A. is coming up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2009. The petitioner had opted to avail of the remedy of initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents herein by means of that application and in case the learned Single Judge takes the view that a prima facie case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out, the matter can be referred to Division Bench for initiating appropriate proceedings. Thus, we
2010:DHC:14806-DB are not inclined to entertain the present petition with a prayer to take suo motu action in the matter.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition as all the contentions which are raised in this petition and would naturally be available to the petitioner in the Crl. M.A. pending before the learned Single Judge, and would be pressed by the petitioner in those proceedings to take appropriate view of the matter after hearing the parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe case, either way. We may also note that submission of the respondents is that petitioner was arrested in altogether different positions.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
JANUARY 07,2010 pst
A.K.SIKRI, J
\ ^
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J
2010:DHC:14806-DB
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate with Mr. K. Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Satish Aggarwala, Advocate for the respondents.
+ Cont. Cas.CCrn No. 11/2009
This criminal contempt petition is preferred by the petitioner alleging that in spite ofanticipatory bail granted to the petitioner by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Bail Application No.703/2008 on 11.04.2008, the petitioner was arrested by the respondents when he appeared before the respondents for investigation, that too pursuant to the subsequent orders passed by the learned
Single Judge on the application preferred by the respondents for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted on 11.04.2008.
We note that when the petitioner was arrested on 02.07.2008, on the very next date the petitioner filed Crl.M.A. No.7692/2008. In the said application, in addition to making a prayer for his release, another specific prayer made is for initiating appropriate proceedings against S. Suresh, Senior Intelligence Officer, who arrested the petitioner as well as the other officials of the respondents/DRI.
It is specifically averred in this petition that in the said application notice has been issued. We are informed that the said Crl.M.A. is coming up for hearing before the learned Single Judge on 10.02.2009. The petitioner had opted to avail of the remedy of initiating criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents herein by means of that application and in case the learned Single Judge takes the view that a prima facie case for initiating contempt proceedings is made out, the matter can be referred to Division Bench for initiating appropriate proceedings. Thus, we
2010:DHC:14806-DB are not inclined to entertain the present petition with a prayer to take suo motu action in the matter.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw this petition as all the contentions which are raised in this petition and would naturally be available to the petitioner in the Crl. M.A. pending before the learned Single Judge, and would be pressed by the petitioner in those proceedings to take appropriate view of the matter after hearing the parties. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits ofthe case, either way. We may also note that submission of the respondents is that petitioner was arrested in altogether different positions.
The petition is accordingly disposed of.
JANUARY 07,2010 pst
A.K.SIKRI, J
\ ^
AJIT BHARIHOKE, J
2010:DHC:14806-DB
JUDGMENT