Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Sandeep Kumar Bafna vs State Of Maharashtra on 28 January, 2014

H

ITEM NO.2                            COURT   NO.7                       SECTION
IIA

              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).8779/2013

(From the judgement and order dated 14/10/2013 in CRLA No.975/2013 of
the HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY)

SANDEEP KUMAR BAFNA                                  Petitioner(s)

                   VERSUS

STATE OF MAHARASHTRA                                 Respondent(s)

(With appln(s) for stay of arrest and exemption from filing c/c of the
impugned Judgment)
WITH
SLP(Crl) NO. 8740 of 2013
(With appln. for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned judgment,
exemption from filing certified translations, ex-parte stay and
office report)


Date: 28/01/2014    These Petitions were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAMAJIT SEN

For Petitioner(s)
      Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.
      Mr. V.K. Bali, Sr. Adv.
      Ms. Manali Singhal, Adv.
      Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Adv.
      Mr. Aditya Soni, Adv.
      Mr. Santosh Sachin, Adv.
      for Mr. Nikhil Jain, Adv.

For Respondent(s)
      Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.
      for Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, Adv.

      Mr.   Ashok Bhan, Sr. Adv.
      Mr.   Rigwan Merchant, Adv.
      Mr.   Satbir Pillania, Adv.
      Mr.   Somvir Deswal, Adv.
      for   Mr. R.C. Gubrele, Adv.

                                                                         ...2/-
                                       : 2 :


             UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
                                 O R D E R

We find no reason to extend the interim protection granted to the petitioner on October 24, 2013 any further.

The special leave petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner shall not be arrested for a period of two weeks from today to enable him to apply for regular bail.

We make it clear that we are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case.

Mr. V.K. Bali, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that on the basis of the earlier order passed by this Court, the petitioner has already appeared before the Investigating Officer and, therefore, this matter has become infructuous and hence, no purpose would be served in pursuing the matter further.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous.

                |(N.S.K. Kamesh)                         | |(Usha Sharma)
    |
|Court Master                          | |Court Master                        |