Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.67 seconds)
M.Mohamed Abbas vs The State Represented By on 1 August, 2023 cites

Gautam Navlakha vs National Investigation Agency on 12 May, 2021

14) and others; that on 04.05.2023, 'Investigation Officer' (hereinafter 'IO' for the sake of brevity and convenience) [to be noted, Inspector of Police Mr.V.Arun Magesh, NIA is the IO] filed a memo in trial court arraying https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/73 Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023, Crl.A.No.678 of 2023 and HCP No.1114 of 2023 the petitioner and others as accused persons; that on the same day, i.e., on 04.05.2023, IO filed a petition in trial court requesting for search warrants qua petitioner; that on 05.05.2023, search warrants were issued by trial court; that on obtaining search warrants, NIA conducted searches in the residence and farm house of petitioner; that on 08.05.2023, on receipt of final report / charge sheet, trial court had taken cognizance of the same and assigned Special S.C.No.1 of 2023; that on 09.05.2023, the petitioner was arrested; that a remand prayer was made by NIA in trial court qua petitioner and four others (five in all); that trial court acceded to the remand request; that trial court vide order dated 09.05.2023 remanded the petitioner till 23.05.2023; that petitioner filed a bail petition dated 16.05.2023 vide Crl.M.P.No.893 of 2023 inter-alia under Section 439 of Cr.P.C read with Section 43D of UAPA; that NIA filed objections dated 08.06.2023; that trial court in and by 'order dated 20.06.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.893 of 2023' dismissed the bail plea after hearing both sides (hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity); that captioned criminal appeal (Crl.A.No.678 of 2023) has been filed in this Court on 23.06.2023 under section 21(4) of 'The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 [Act 34 of 2008]' {hereinafter 'NIA Act' https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/73 Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023, Crl.A.No.678 of 2023 and HCP No.1114 of 2023 for the sake of convenience}; that aforementioned 'FIR No.RC- 42/2022/NIA/DLI dated 19.09.2022' is sought to be quashed (insofar as the petitioner is concerned) in captioned Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023 and therefore, the aforementioned FIR shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned FIR' for the sake of convenience; that in the interregnum, on 22.05.2023, captioned HCP No.1114 of 2023 has been filed in this court by brother of the petitioner [Thiru M.Syed Mohamed Abuthahir] inter- alia saying that the remand order dated 09.05.2023 made by the trial court is bad; that this HCP before being assigned a number was listed before this Court for orders regarding maintainability; that this Court in and by order dated 21.06.2023 directed the Registry to assign a number if otherwise in order, preserving rights of respondents (State) to raise the issue of maintainability; that this maintainability order was made by this court inter-alia on a prima facie view that paragraph 71 of Gautam Navlakha case being Gautam Navlakha Vs. National Investigation Agency reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 382 carved out two exceptions qua Serious Fraud Investigation Office principle [Serious Fraud Investigation Office Vs. Rahul Modi reported in (2019) 5 SCC 266] more particularly paragraphs 19 and 21 thereat; that captioned https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/73 Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023, Crl.A.No.678 of 2023 and HCP No.1114 of 2023 matters were tagged considering the common factual matrix and owing to many arguments advanced being either dovetailed or intertwined on facts and law.
Supreme Court of India Cites 82 - Cited by 47 - K Joseph - Full Document

State Of Haryana And Ors vs Ch. Bhajan Lal And Ors on 21 November, 1990

In legal parlance, this sheet anchor argument is predicated on one of the seven illustrations adumbrated in oft quoted Bhajan Lal case being State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. There is no disputation https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 18/73 Crl.O.P.No.12229 of 2023, Crl.A.No.678 of 2023 and HCP No.1114 of 2023 or contestation before this Court that Bhajan Lal principle qua FIR quash holds the field (albeit with some evolved views) and seven illustrations adumbrated in paragraph 102 thereat continue to operate when it comes to testing a plea for quash of FIR. In this view of the matter, we deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce illustration No.(7) as set out by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhajan Lal in paragraph 102 and the same reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 44 - Cited by 19733 - S R Pandian - Full Document

Satender Kumar Antil vs Central Bureau Of Investigation on 11 July, 2022

39 The prosecution has to show that there is prima facie material available to negative the bail plea and the activities committed by the petitioner would attract Section 43D(5) and proviso thereat. In the case on hand, a perusal of the case diary shows that there is no specific overt act against the petitioner and only a cell phone, two pen drives (from the residence of petitioner) and long knives and axe (from the farm house of petitioner) were recovered. The contents of pen drives are not known. Charge sheet as regards the petitioner is yet to be filed. Further, the trial court in its impugned order has categorically said that the question of absconding of the petitioner may not arise since he is an Advocate. All this put together, if the eight factors mentioned in Hussainara Khatton case (to determine whether the accused has his roots in the community which would deter him from fleeing) which were reiterated in Antil case are applied, this Court is of the view that a finding has to be rendered in favour of the petitioner regarding bail plea.
Supreme Court of India Cites 131 - Cited by 19037 - M M Sundresh - Full Document
1