SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Del) 355

M.K.CHAWLA
SAJJAN KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF DELHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A.K.NIGAM, ARUN JAITLEY, B.R.Handa, Harsh Patney, I.U.KHAN, S.C.SINGHA

(M. K. CHAWLA), J.

( 1 ) ON an application us 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner was directed to be released on bail. in the event of his arrest by the Central Bureau of Investigation. CBI Office, CGO Complex, New Delhi, on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. He was. however, directed to join the investigation as and when called upon by the 10 by a written requisition. This order wasassed on 11-9-90 and was communicated to the officers of the CBI by a telephonic message. Notice of this application was sent to the respondents for 26th September, 1990 to show cause, why anticipatory bail be not confirmed.

( 2 ) THE respondent-OBI has filed the reply and has opposed the confirmation of the anticipatory bail of the petitioner on numerous grounds, namely :

(1) The petitioner is involved in a case of murder which is an offence of serious nature. He is an influential person of the area and is capable of organising huge rallies with a view to prevent the concerned persona not to be witnesses in the case. One of the eyewitness has in fact been threatened or serious conseque






































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top