Supreme Court grants interim bail to ED officer Ankit Tiwari in bribery case
The Enforcement Officer Ankit Tiwari was accused of an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Enforcement Officer Ankit Tiwari was accused of an offence punishable under Section 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The Court followed by hearing the application under Section 207 of CrPC moved on behalf of Kejriwal.
The Court took note that Soren had earlier filed a plea under Article 226 of the Constitution before the High Court but opted for withdrawal of the same to approach the Supreme Court.
Calcutta High Court noted the registration of a counter FIR before an FIR about the attacks on Enforcement Directorate officials, casting doubt on police impartiality.
In August 2023, the Supreme Court granted interim bail to Nawab Malik for two months, which was subsequently extended in October 2023 by three months.
by Vasanth Rajasekaran† and Harshvardhan Korada††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 3
On submission that the accused were ‘coaxed’ to accompany ED officials, Punjab and Haryana High Court concluded that the act was not in pursuance of purported summons issued but an unlawful restraint.
It is for violation of Section 18(2) and Section 18(3) of the FERA that would entail action under Section 56 FERA, but the intervening threshold of issuance of show cause notice/opportunity notice and hearing the notice before passing the decision upon such mandatory application of principles of natural justice alone that the action under Section 56 could, at all, have been initiated.
While the applicant’s right to healthcare and medical treatment is a fundamental consideration, it cannot be allowed to overshadow the pressing need to investigate fairly and ensure that due legal processes are followed.
“The summoning of a person repeatedly without probable cause or reasonable ground and only on the ground of suspicion alone is not in accordance with the principles of due causes and fairness”
“The very purpose of the constitutional and statutory protection would be rendered nugatory if the authorities concerned are permitted to merely read out or permit reading of the grounds of arrest, irrespective of their length and detail, and claim due compliance with the constitutional requirement under Article 22(1) and the statutory mandate under Section 19(1) of the PMLA”.
“Since the territorial jurisdiction of the present case is in Chennai only, therefore Chennai being one of the jurisdictional area under the notification issued by the Central Government, which comes under the jurisdiction of the PDSJ, Chennai, naturally the said case has to be tried in the said Court”
Calcutta High Court held that “no case is made out to seek the exceptional relief of ‘not to take coercive action'.”
Supreme Court held that the words “such custody” occurring in Section 167(2) of the CrPC, 1973 would include not only police custody but also that of other investigating agencies.
The present case is related to the cash-for-jobs scam, in which the Tamil Nadu Minister and DMK MLA V Senthil Balaji, among others, has been accused of accepting bribes from candidates in exchange of appointment to the State Transportation Corporation
Supreme Court further made it clear that no further extension of tenure would be granted for SK Mishra.
Supreme Court allowed SK Mishra to continue his services as ED Director till 31-07-2023.
This report provides Justice Nisha Banu’s opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
This report provides Justice D. Bharatha Chakravarthy opinion in the Habeas Corpus plea.
The division bench of Madras High Court delivered a split verdict and referred the matter to the Chief Justice to place it before another judge.