Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Aadil Ansari vs The State Of Rajasthan on 30 September, 2020

Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Navin Sinha, K.M. Joseph

                                                          1

     ITEM NO.9                       Court 3 (Video Conferencing)                SECTION II

                                      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).    9385/2019

     (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 16-04-2019
     in SBCRMBA No. 4237/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature For
     Rajasthan At Jodhpur)

     AADIL ANSARI                                                               Petitioner(s)

                                                         VERSUS

     THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN                                                     Respondent(s)

     IA No. 51130/2020 - CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
     IA No. 27540/2020 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.

     Date : 30-09-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.

     CORAM :                  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
                              HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH

     For Petitioner(s)                    Mr. Mohd. Irshad Hanif, AOR
                                          Mr. Rizwan Ahmad Durrani, Adv.
                                          Mr. Mujahid Ahmad, Adv.

     For Respondent(s)                    Mr. Rahul Kumar, Adv.
                                          Ms. Pragati Neekhra, AOR

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

We have perused Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. We have also perused the FIR, where the petitioner is not named, and, the relevant extracts of the charge- sheet dated 17.09.2014 insofar as it relates to the petitioner. We have also perused an order dated 26.10.2014 where bail was not granted.

Signature Not Verified

We are satisfied that the High Court judgment stating Digitally signed by R Natarajan Date: 2020.09.30 that a prima facie case has been made out against the petitioner 17:23:06 IST Reason:

based on the public prosecutor’s statement cannot be said to be strictly correct.
2
Having perused these documents, without saying anything more, so as not to prejudice the trial, we set aside the judgment of the High Court and enlarge the petitioner on bail, subject to the usual conditions to be imposed by the trial court. The Special Leave Petition stands disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(R. NATARAJAN)                                 (R.S. NARAYANAN)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS                         COURT MASTER (NSH)