Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: INTERIM BAIL APPLICATION in Amandeep Singh Dhall vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 4 June, 2024Matching Fragments
(b) On 16.08.2023, arguments were part-heard by the Predecessor Bench and matter was listed for 04.09.2023.
(c) On 04.09.2023, a detailed order was passed by the Predecessor Bench on the interim bail application filed by the applicant, and arguments on the main bail application were not addressed on behalf of applicant.
(d) After the Predecessor Bench had released the matter from „part-
heard category‟, on 19.10.2023, this Bench had listed the matter for arguments on 18.12.2023 at the request of parties.
(e) On 18.12.2023, the Bench was on leave, and therefore, the matter was renotified for the next day.
(f) On 19.12.2023, arguments were not addressed on the main bail application, but on the interim bail application preferred on behalf of the applicant on medical grounds. After hearing arguments, the interim bail application was reserved for orders, and a 23-page judgment was delivered on 22.12.2023 vide which the said application was disposed of.
(a) On 25.08.2023, notice was issued on the interim bail application filed by the applicant, which was then disposed of vide order dated 04.09.2023 by the Predecessor Bench.
(b) Applications seeking modification of order dated 04.09.2023 were disposed of on 13.09.2023. On 15.09.2023, notice was issued on the applications seeking transfer of the applicant to a private hospital instead of AIIMS. On 19.09.2023, the said applications were disposed of by the Predecessor Bench by an order running into 12 pages.
27. Therefore, on about 29 hearings out of total 37, it was the applicant himself who was moving multiple applications and seeking issuance of notice, praying for hearing arguments on interim applications, and not regular bail application, on the grounds that the applicant was suffering from medical ailments and required either interim bail or treatment in hospital in custody or change of hospital, etc. It is noteworthy that over the past 11 months, the applicant had moved as many as 14 applications seeking interim reliefs in the present bail application itself, and on all the hearings, arguments had been heard by this Court and effective orders had been passed, and all the 14 applications stand disposed of as of today.