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 0, Cited by 10]

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Pitam Pradhan vs State Of A.P. on 26 February, 2014

¾
                OUT-TODAY


ITEM NO.51                  COURT NO.8             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).9664/2013


(From the judgement and order dated 10/10/2013 in CRLP No.9295/2013, of
The HIGH COURT OF A.P AT HYDERABAD)


PITAM PRADHAN                                         Petitioner(s)


                   VERSUS


STATE OF A.P.AND ANR.                                 Respondent(s)


(With appln(s) for directions,stay of arrest and office report ))


Date: 26/02/2014    This Petition was called on for hearing today.


CORAM :
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR
          HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI


For Petitioner(s)
                       Mr. Rauf Rahim,Adv.


For Respondent(s)
       Mr. Shishir Pinaki, Adv.
       Mr. D. Mahesh Babu,Adv.
       Mr. Amit K. Nain, Adv.
       Ms. Suchitra Hrangkowl, Adv.
       Mr. Amjid Maqbool, Adv.
       Mr. Aditya Jain, Adv.
       Mr. B. Rama Krishna Rao, Adv.




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

Being extra cautious, we had issued notice to the wife, since she is now claiming that there has been no settlement. She is also now claiming that the documents are not being duly supplied to her. Service has been duly effected on the wife. She has not appeared to respond to the notice. The petitioner is employed with Ericsson India in the capacity of Senior Solution Integrator. In ...2/-

-2-

the course of his duties, the petitioner is required to travel abroad at frequent intervals. It has been brought to our notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner that unless the petitioner is permitted to travel abroad, he is likely to loose his job.

Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to grant anticipatory bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. The Investigating Officer will permit the petitioner to travel abroad to attend to the duties and impose any other suitable condition to secure the attendance of the petitioner either for the purpose of investigation or trial, if any, at a later stage.

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

   (Sukhbir Paul Kaur)                   (Indu Bala Kapur)
      Court Master                         Court Master




        (Copy of this order be given today itself)