1. Special Leave Petition challenging a High Court order rejecting the petitioner's request for relief. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2023 Supreme(SC) 1293
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.
Sanket Bhadresh Modi – Petitioners
VERSUS
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) – Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 631 of 2023 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 09-01-2023 in BA No. 3755/2022 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)
Decided On : 13-07-2023
Important Points
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.
Subject
Civil Law - Interim Relief
Headnote
Interim Protection - Dissolution of Interim Protection - The court found that the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting the request of the petitioner for interim protection, leading to the dissolution of the interim protection granted earlier. The court declined to interfere with the impugned order.
Fact of the Case:
The court had initially granted interim protection against arrest of the petitioner, but upon reviewing the objection statement filed by the respondent, it found that the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting the petitioner's request for interim protection.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the High Court's decision to reject the petitioner's request for interim protection was justified and dissolved the interim protection granted earlier.
Issues: The main issue was the petitioner's request for interim protection against arrest.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the High Court did not commit any error in rejecting the petitioner's request for interim protection.
Final Decision: The special leave petition was disposed of, and pending application(s) were also disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
criminal procedure
- interim protection against arrest (Para 2)
-
criminal procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jay Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Gautam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Aggarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Sairica S Raju, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Siddhartha Dave, Sr. Adv. Mr. Jay Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Surabhi Mahajan, Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, AOR Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Akshay Singh, Adv. Mr. Gautam Mishra, Adv. Ms. Kinjal Aggarwal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Suryaprakash V Raju, A.S.G. Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv. Mr. Annam Venkatesh, Adv. Ms. Sairica S Raju, Adv. Ms. Deepabali Dutta, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner sought interference with the High Court's rejection of their request; respondent opposed the petition via an objection statement. (Para 2 )
3. The High Court committed no error in rejecting the petitioner's request upon perusal of the respondent's objection statement. (Para 2 )
4. A High Court order will be upheld if no error is found upon review of the case records and objections. (Para 2 )
5. Interim protection against arrest dissolved, High Court order upheld, and special leave petition disposed of. (Para 2 , 3 )
6. Under what circumstances will the court refuse to interfere with a High Court order rejecting a request for relief?
The court will refuse to interfere with the impugned order if, after perusing the petition papers and the respondent's objection statement, it is determined that the High Court committed no error in its decision. (Para 2 )
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.
