Back
A. S. BOPANNA, M. M. SUNDRESH
Sanket Bhadresh Modi – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Respondent
ORDER
Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner as also learned ASG for the respondent and perused the petition papers.
2. Though this Court at the first instance had granted interim protection against arrest of the petitioner while directing notice to the respondent on 20.01.2023, we presently have the benefit of objection statement filed on behalf of the respondent. Having perused the same, we are of the opinion that the High Court has not committed any error in passing the impugned order rejecting the request of the petitioner. In that view, the order dated 20.01.2023 granting interim protection stands dissolved. We see no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
3. The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Pending application(s) shall also stand disposed of.
The court upheld the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for interim protection, leading to the dissolution of the interim protection granted earlier.
The principle of non-interference with interim orders when the matter is still pending before the lower court.
Bail – A lady is entitled to special protection under Section 437 of Cr.P.C.
The court's decision not to interfere in the impugned judgment and the specific observations regarding the learned Single Judge's remarks.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's interim order, emphasizing that the appeal process must be respected and that stay applications may be renewed at the appropriate level.
Courts generally defer to the decisions of lower courts unless there is a clear error on the record.
The court granted interim protection while directing the petitioner to cooperate with the ongoing investigation pending a charge-sheet.
The Supreme Court emphasized the need for the High Court to expedite the disposal of pending applications under Article 226(3) of the Constitution, reinforcing the principle of timeliness in legal pr....
The main legal point established is that the Supreme Court's jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India does not warrant interference with the High Court's order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
