Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Ahmed A.R. Buhari vs Assistant Director Directorate Of ... on 5 December, 2022
Bench: Surya Kant, J.K. Maheshwari
1
ITEM NO.12 COURT NO.11 SECTION II-C
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).5476/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 28-03-2022
in CRLOP No.6205/2022 passed by the High Court of Judicature at
Madras)
AHMED A.R. BUHARI Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.82569/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING
C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No.82572/2022-PERMISSION TO
PLACE ADDITIONAL FACTS AND GROUNDS and IA No.82581/2022-PERMISSION
TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 05-12-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Vikram Chaudhary, Sr.Adv.
Dr. R.Maheshwari, Adv.
Mr. Sandeep Kapur, Adv.
Mr. Raktim Gogoi, Adv.
Mr. Gopal Singh Chauhan, Adv.
Dr. N.Vijay Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Archana Nishanth, Adv.
Mr. Kartikeya Singh, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv.
Ms. Prabhneer Swami, Adv.
Mr. Arveen Sekhon, Adv.
Mr. Jigyasa Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Subhasish Bhowmick, AOR
Mr. Vaibhav Tomar, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASG
Mr. Kanu Agrawal, Adv.
Mr. Rajat Nair, Adv.
Signature Not Verified
Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv.
Mr. Adit Khorana, Adv.
Digitally signed by
satish kumar yadav
Date: 2022.12.05
19:58:33 IST
Reason: Mr. Nakul Chengappa K.K., Adv.
Ms. Akriti A.Manubarwala, Adv.
Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
2
O R D E R
1. Having heard learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the respondent, we do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail at this stage as it might hamper the ongoing investigating process.
2. However, once the investigation is complete, the petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the Trial Court for his release on bail, and such a petition shall be considered as per its own merit without being influenced by the orders passed by the High Court or this Court.
3. The respondent is directed to expedite the investigating process and make an endeavour to complete the same within three months.
4. With the aforesaid directions, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
5. As a result, pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.
(SATISH KUMAR YADAV) (PREETHI T.C.) DEPUTY REGISTRAR COURT MASTER (NSH)