B. Rama Raju vs. Union Of India Ministry Of Finance Deptt. Of Revenue
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
First Hearing
Listed On:
10 Jul 2017
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
ITEM NO.15 COURT NO.6 SECTION II-A
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 4634/2014
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 30-04-2014 in CRLA No. 1132/2012 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
VIJAY MADANLAL CHOUDHARY & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondent(s)
(ONLY INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION NO. 1037 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.175 OF 2018 TO BE LISTED ON 8TH JANUARY, 2019 )
WITH W.P.(Crl.) No. 175/2018 (X) (FOR DIRECTION ON IA 1037/2019)
Date : 08-01-2019 This Application was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
| For Petitioner(s) | Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Adv.<br>Mr. Harshit Sethi, Adv.<br>Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill, Adv.<br>Mr. Nikhil Jain, AOR |
|---|---|
| Ms. Preeti Singh, AOR | |
| M/s. Fox Mandal & Co., AOR | |
| For Respondent(s) | Mr. A.K. Panda, Sr. Adv.<br>Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv.<br>Mr. Ritesh Kumar, Adv.<br>Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR |
| Mr. M. T. George, AOR | |
| Mr. O. P. Gaggar, AOR<br>Mr. Aditya Gaggar, Adv. | |
| Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, AOR<br>Mr. Nitin Kumar Thakur, AOR | |
| Ms. Soumiya P., Adv. |
Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Adv. For M/s. M. V. Kini & Associates, AOR Mr. P.K. Dey, Adv. Mr. T.A. Khan, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, AOR Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R
I.A. NO. 1037 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO.175 OF 2018:
Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
We find that a co-accused, who was arrested on 07.05.2018, was granted bail on 14.12.2018. Bail was denied to the present petitioner. We see no reason to deny him bail, particularly having regard to the fact that the petitioner was arrested one year earlier than the co-accused.
The petitioner, therefore, is enlarged on bail, subject to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court.
Application is allowed accordingly.