A. PONNUCHAMI Vs. STATE OF RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AN application has been filed on behalf of CBI by Mr. Santosh Kumar, I.O./Dy. S.P. CBI, SC -II stating that as the advocates are on strike, the bail application should be adjourned but looking to the fact that bail application is under Section 439 Cr.P.C. could not be adjourned for indefinite period and apart from it a brief synopsis has been filed by the Investigating Officer, hence there seems to be no need to adjourn the matter.

(2.) HEARD Smt. A. Bhuvaneshwari, wife of petitioner and Mr. Santosh Kumar, Dy. S.P., CBI, New Delhi, Investigating Officer and Mr. VS Meena, Inspector, CBI, New Delhi who are present for State and perused the material on record.

(3.) PER contra, on behalf of CBI a brief synopsis has been filed in which brief facts of the case have been narrated and evidence and role of present petitioner has also been explained which could not be considered again as this is the second bail application and in earlier bail application, merits of the case has already been considered. On behalf of CBI observations made by the co -ordinate Bench have also been narrated on which no dispute could be raised. The contention on behalf of the CBI is that the role of the present petitioner is not at par with other co -accused who have been released on bail. This is not the case of the petitioner and he has not claimed parity with any of the co -accused.