Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 160 in Y S Chowdary vs Bureau Of Immigration And 3 Others on 24 April, 2023Matching Fragments
iv) According to respondent No.2, during the commission of the alleged scam, the petitioner herein was the director of various companies belonging to the Sujana Group. Therefore, suspecting him to be involved in the alleged scam, he was summoned for examination KL,J under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'Cr.P.C.') by respondent No.2 in the year 2019.
v) The petitioner herein filed W.P. No.9590 of 2019 challenging the issuance of summons. In the said writ petition, this Court granted interim order dated 30.04.2019 directing respondent No.2 herein to not arrest the petitioner under the guise of investigation and not to cause any metal or physical torture. Subsequently, the said writ petition was disposed of recording the submission of learned standing counsel for the respondent No.2 that the petitioner will be again summoned under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C., if any information is required. Liberty was granted to the petitioner to challenge the fresh summons, if any issued.
KL,J
xv) Further, this Court vide 30.04.2019 in W.P. No.9590 of 2019 never granted an order not to take any coercive steps. The relevant portion of the said order is extracted below:
"Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, at this stage, this Court feels that it would be just and proper if a direction is issued to the petitioner to appear before respondent No.2 between '10.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. on 27th and 28th May,2019 with one hour Lunch break between 1.00 p.m. and 2.00 p.m. The petitioner shall cooperate with the investigation. He is at liberty to have the company of his counsel during the said period of investigation and the same shall be permitted by respondent No.2. However, it is made clear that under the garb of investigation under Section 160 Cr.P.C., respondent No.2 shall not arrest or subject the petitioner to physical or mental torture. It is needless to observe that respondent No.2 would complete investigation on the above two days."