2003 (9) TMI 809

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cellation of interim bail granted to the petitioner vide order dated 5.5.2003 passed in Crl. M. (M) No. 1817/2003. On 4.6.2003 Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.A. Khan, while issuing notice, extended the interim bail till further orders, observing: "Meanwhile, he is asking for extension of interim bail granted to him by order dated 5.5.2003 on medical grounds of his wife and on other attendant circumstances which is to expire on 12.6.2003. The basis of his application remains the same though he asserts that condition of his wife suffering from advance stage of Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis disease was deteriorating and that she had became totally paralysed by now. It is also submitted that due to advanced stage of the progression disease,....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....including the files of the cases in petitioner's court and six page unsigned corrected draft of the order dated 20.02.2003, passed by the petitioner in the suit Azad Singh v. DDA and Ors., (No. 1493/2000) (hereinafter 'the order in question'). Facts leading to the filing of this suit are : that in 1993 DDA decided to widen Aruna Asaf Ali Road, connecting outer ring road and the Mehrauli-Mahilpur Road, to 30 meters; in 1995, it was decided to increase its width to 45 meters. The work was entrusted to Public Works Department (PWD). A strip of land passing through village Kishangarh, could not be handed over to PWD as there were several encroachments. The demolition of unauthorised structures could not be carried because of injunct....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the parties were heard at length. Shri A.K. Dutt, learned counsel for the CBI, opposed the bail and referred to the various statements. "Synopsis of Evidence" collected was also filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, refusing the allegations, argued to the contrary, inter alia, submitting that order dated 20.2.2003, passed in Suit No. 1493/2000 did not confer any right, title or interest on the plaintiff therein and, therefore, it could not be termed as a fruit of conspiracy, as claimed by CBI. After hearing the arguments, on 3.9.2003 the order was reserved. On 5.9.2003, learned standing counsel for CBI mentioned the matter and also filed supplementary affidavit of the Investigating Officer, seeking to withdraw the "Synopsis of Evidenc....