Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2019 Supreme(SC) 1212

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS)
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
P. CHIDAMBARAM – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT - Respondent(s)
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 7523/2019 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 20-08-2019 in BAIL APPLICATION No. 1713/2018 passed by the High Court Of Delhi At New Delhi)
WITH
P. CHIDAMBARAM – Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION – Respondent(s)
SLP(Crl) No. 7525/2019 (II-C)
Decided On : 26-08-2019

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kapil Sibal,Sr.Adv. Dr. A.M. Singhvi,Sr.Adv. Mr. Salman Khurshid,Sr.Adv. Mr. Vivek Tankha,Sr.Adv. Mr. Kunal Vajani,Adv. Mr. Arshdeep Singh Khurana,Adv. Mr. Amit Bhandari,Adv. Mr. Adit Pujari,Adv. Mr. Varun K. Chopra,Adv. Mr. Hitesh Rai,Adv. Mr. Akshat Gupta,Adv. Mr. Ayush Agarwal,Adv. Mr. Karan Gogna,Adv. Mr. Aman Singh Brar,Adv. Mr. Akshay Sahni,Adv. Mr. Raghav Tankha,Adv. Mrs.Shally Bhasin, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Tushar Mehta,SG Mr. K.M. Natraj,ASG Ms. Sonia Mathur,Sr.Adv. Mr. Amit Mahajan,Adv. Mr. Rajat Nair,Adv. Mr. Manan Popli,Adv. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan,Adv. Mr. Zoheb Hossain,Adv. Mr. Kanu Aggarwal,Adv. Mr. B.K. Prasad,Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

Dismissal of special leave petition as infructuous due to petitioner's arrest in line with legal precedent

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Challenge to High Court Order - Dismissal of Special Leave Petition as Infructuous
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the High Court's order declining to grant anticipatory bail in a case registered under various sections of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act. The petitioner was subsequently arrested, and the Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition as infructuous.
Finding of the Court:

The Supreme Court found that the dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail had become infructuous due to the petitioner's arrest, in line with the judgment in Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others vs. State of Punjab. The petitioner was granted liberty to work out their remedy in accordance with the law, and the contentions raised by both parties were left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.
Issues: Challenge to High Court's Order on Anticipatory Bail, Infructuous Special Leave Petition
Ratio Decidendi: The dismissal of the special leave petition as infructuous due to the petitioner's arrest, in accordance with the legal precedent, rendered the challenge to the High Court's order on anticipatory bail moot.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was dismissed as having become infructuous, and the petitioner was granted liberty to pursue their remedy in accordance with the law. The contentions raised by both parties were left open for consideration at the appropriate stage.

ORDER

SLP(Crl.)No.7525 of 2019:

1. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order of the High Court dated 20.08.2019 in and by which the High Court has declined to grant anticipatory bail in CBI No. RC220-2017-E-0011 registered under Section 120-B IPC & Section 420 IPC and Sections 8, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption act, 1988.

2. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that after dismissal of the petition for anticipatory bail by the High Court, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court challenging the said order. The grievance of the petitioner is that an opportunity of hearing has not been given to the petitioner in spite of direction dated 21st August, 2019 for early hearing. It is stated that subsequently, the petitioner has been arrested on 21st August, 2019. Since the petitioner has been arrested, in view of the judgment of the Constitution Bench reported in 1980 (2) SCC 565 Shri Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia & Others vs. State of Punjab, we find that this special leave petition has become infructuous. The special leave petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having become infructuous.

3. The petitioner is at liberty to work out his remedy in accordance with law. The contentions raised by both the parties are left open to be considered at the appropriate stage.

4. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.

SLP(Crl.)No. 7523 of 2019:

5. We have heard the arguments of Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, in full.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Directorate of Enforcement has filed the counter affidavit.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner requests time till tomorrow to file response to the counter affidavit. Learned counsel may do so by tomorrow i.e. 27th August, 2019 before the hearing commences.

8. For hearing respondent-Directorate of Enforcement, list the matter tomorrow i.e. 27th August, 2019 at 12.00 noon.

9. Interim protection granted on 23.08.2019 to the petitioner shall continue till tomorrow i.e. 27th August, 2019.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document