2003 (9) TMI 78

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....diately for the next day. The appellants contend that a copy of the application was served on the second appellant at about 3.30 p.m. on 2-1-2002 and the matter was taken up for hearing by the Court on 3-1-2002. The appellants also contend that on behalf of the second appellant a prayer was made for grant of some time to file an affidavit in reply by giving an undertaking to the Court not to arrest the petitioners before the High Court (respondents herein) in the meanwhile. The appellants further submitted that they brought to the notice of the High Court incriminating evidence against the respondents. However, the High Court by its order dated 3-1-2002 itself allowed the petition and granted anticipatory bail on certain terms and condition....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt anticipatory bail in this case. After hearing the arguments of the parties, we think it appropriate to dispose of this appeal solely on the ground that the procedure adopted by the High Court was not correct on facts and circumstances of this case. It is to be noted that a copy of the petition for grant of anticipatory bail was admittedly served on the 2nd appellant only in the afternoon of 2-1-2002. Though the respondents herein has denied that learned Counsel for the 2nd appellant had sought time before the High Court, we do not find any such specific denial in the counter affidavit here. That apart, we think it highly improbable that the learned Counsel for the 2nd appellant would have agreed to argue the matter without filing a prope....