Back
SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
Sudhanshu Ranjan @ Chhotu Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India, through National Investigation Agency, New Delhi – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. hearing conducted via video conferencing. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. details of the fir and context of charges. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. arguments regarding maintainability under section 482 cr.p.c. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. the mandatory nature of section 306(4)(b) regarding detention of approvers. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. legal interpretation of approvers' detention and rights under article 21. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 6. court's observation on balance of detainment and article 21. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. arguments against prolonged detainment without bail option. (Para 19 , 20) |
| 8. legal precedent and reasoning for conditional granting of bail. (Para 21 , 22 , 23) |
| 9. decision to grant bail with conditions outlined. (Para 24) |
| 10. conclusion and order of the court. (Para 25 , 26) |
ORDER :
Heard.
2. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard.
3. In this case an office note was there to the effect that since the case is arising out of National Investigation Agency, A
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
