AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Sodhi, J.—Notice. Mr. Dutt accepts notice on behalf of Central Bureau of Investigation.
It is argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the peculiar circumstances of this case, there is no loss to the Bank or to the Exchequer and that the roll ascribed to the petitioners is remote. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he may be given an opportunity to move the regular court for bail and sufficient time be given to him to move the higher court, in the event his bail application is dismissed.
Learned counsel draws my attention to a judgment of the Supreme Court in K.L. Verma v. State and Anr. 1998 SCC (Cri) 1031, where such a direction has been given by the Supreme Court and the case of Sirajuddin explained. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court which is law, learned counsel for CBI has reluctantly acceded.
In this view of the matter, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstances of this case, I direct that in the event the petitioner moves an application for bail before the trial court he be not taken into custody for a period of one week. In the event the trial court does not deem it appropriate to admit the petitioner to bail, the petitioners shall appear before the trial court on or before the date fixed f6r appearance.
Crl. M. (M) 492/2002 is disposed of.