24 October 1997
Supreme Court
Download

STATE OF ASSAM Vs R K KRISHNA KUMAR

Bench: M.K. MUKHERJEE,K.T. THOMAS
Case number: Crl.A. No.-001004-001004 / 1997
Diary number: 16204 / 1997
Advocates: Vs MANIK KARANJAWALA


1

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 1  

PETITIONER: STATE OF ASSAM & ANR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: R.K. KRISHNA KUMAR & ORS. ETC., DR. BROJEN GOGOI & OTHERS

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       24/10/1997

BENCH: M.K. MUKHERJEE, K.T. THOMAS

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                THE 24TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1997 Present:               Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.K. Mukherjee               Hon’ble Mr. Justice K.T. Thomas K.T.S. Tulsi, and Santosh N. Hegde, Sr. Adv., Sunil K. Jain, Vijay Hansaria, J.K. Bhatia, Vikas Pahwa, Adv. for M/s. Jain Hansari, & Co., Advs. with them for the appellants. Gopal Subramanian, Sr. Adv., Ashok Bhan, Ms. Bina Gupta, Ms. Rakhi Ray, Mahesh Jethmalani, R.N. Karanjawala, U. Hazarika, Ms.  Nandini   Gore,  (Bhaskar  Pradhan)  Adv.  for  Ms.  M. Karanjawala, Adv. with him for the Respondents.                       J U D G M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: Thomas, J.      Leave granted,      This appeal  is in  challenge of the order of a learned single Judge  of the Bombay High Court granting anticipatory ball to  the respondent  No. 1. When this petition was taken up for  hearing, his  learned Counsel  brought to our notice that in  spite of  the above order the Assam police arrested respondent No.  1 and  took him  into custody.  Thereby,  he submitted, the appellants have violated the direction of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order.      Shri K.T.S.  Tulsi, the  learned counsel  appearing for the appellants,  while conceding  that respondent  No.1  was arrested, joined  issue with  him  on  the  contention  that appellant violated  the direction  of the Bombay High Court. He put  forward the  stand of  the State  of Assam  for  not releasing him on bail.      We do  not think  it necessary  to deal  with the  said controversy in this appeal. If the respondent No. 1 wants to raise  that   question  it  is  open  to  him  to  move  the appropriate forum.      As the respondent No. 1 is now under arrest this appeal has become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.