Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia Etc vs State Of Punjab on 9 April, 1980

A supplementary affidavit has also been filed today. An order passed by the Apex Court in I.A. No. 4 in Transfer Petition (Civil) Appeal No. 1248 and 1250 of 2012 dated 2.5.2013 has been brought on record. From perusal of the order passed by the Apex Court on 2.5.2013, we find that the Apex Court had refused to stay the proceedings or investigation as prayed for in the application and had allowed the proceedings of inquiry by the Vigilance Department to continue. Sri Srivastava was drawing our attention towards the part of the order by which the Apex Court had directed the Vigilance Department not to arrest the applicant Nasirumuddin Siddiqui without the leave of the Supreme Court of India. We find that the above order of the Apex Court could not be applicable in the set of facts of the present case as no investigation is being carried out. As no F.I.R. or case has been instituted for investigation by the Vigilance Department, if we directed not to arrest the petitioner in absence of any F.I.R., any agency or specially the Vigilance Department in connection with the facts, which are still to be formally investigated into by registering a full fledged F.I.R, in our opinion, it shall be in complete conflagration with the observations and directions of the Supreme Court in Shri Gurubaksh Singh Sibbia and others Vs. State of Punjab reported in (1980) 2 SCC 565. In that case the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was explaining the object and scope of the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. which had been added for the first time in the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 in the light of the Law Commission's recommendations in their 41st Report dated 24.9.1969. While speaking on the desirability of not passing the 'blanket order' of anticipatory bail.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 8067 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document
1