SANJEEV SAXENA Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the outset, it is pointed out by the counsel for the State that the applicant has reportedly indulged in influencing the further investigation. For that, the respondents intend to take out a formal application for cancellation of bail granted to the applicant by this Court in other three cases so that the application for cancellation of bail and the present application can proceed together as it would involve overlapping issues. We are inclined to accede to this request.

(2.) After this order is dictated, counsel for the applicant vehemently submits that the stand now taken by the prosecution is an afterthought. He prays that this application be heard today on merits.

(3.) On the other hand, if the prosecution takes out formal application for cancellation of bail, the applicant will get opportunity to respond to the relevant material to be produced and referred to by the prosecution. The applicant, however, is willing to take the risk of the possibility of Court relying on the confidential material produced for perusal of the Court. Accordingly, we proceed to hear the present application forthwith because of the insistence of the applicant.