AIADMK party – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com Your legal news destination! Fri, 25 Sep 2020 07:02:02 +0000 en-US hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.4 https://d2r2ijn7njrktv.cloudfront.net/IL/uploads/2020/12/16123527/cropped-IL_Logo-1-32x32.jpg AIADMK party – India Legal https://www.indialegallive.com 32 32 183211854 Delhi HC denies bail to AIADMK party symbol case accused Sukesh Chandrashekhar https://www.indialegallive.com/constitutional-law-news/courts-news/delhi-hc-denies-bail-to-aiadmk-party-symbol-case-accused-sukesh-chandrashekhar/ Thu, 24 Sep 2020 09:25:23 +0000 https://www.indialegallive.com/?p=116125 Delhi High CourtThe Delhi High Court has today declined the bail application filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar, accused middleman in the case of AIADMK two leaves symbol case stating that the petitioner was interfering with the administration of justice.]]> Delhi High Court

New Delhi (IL News Service): The Delhi High Court has today declined the bail application filed by Sukesh Chandrashekhar, accused middleman in the case of AIADMK two leaves symbol case stating that the petitioner was interfering with the administration of justice.

A single-judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta noted in its judgment that the “In view of the continuous course of conduct of the petitioner in interfering with the administration of justice, this Court finds no ground to grant bail to the petitioner.”

The plea has been filed by Middleman Sukesh Kumar accused in the case of the AIADMK party symbol case, the bail has been sought in a case in which he has been alleged of influencing officials of the jail and attempt to gaining wrongful favors.

The Senior Advocates Mr. Mukul Rohatgi and Mr. Parag P. Tripathi appearing for the petitioner submitted that

the offense under Section 170 IPC is at best punishable upto two years and the petitioner has been in custody in the present case for more than 22 months excluding the period of custody parole. Further, there is no evidence with the prosecution to prove the charges under Sections 419/468/471 IPC, hence, the petitioner is entitled to bail.

Read Also: Retrospective effect of 200% duty on goods from Pak not possible, rules Supreme Court

However, the bench noted that the “petitioner is involved in 20 other cases besides the present one. De-hors the FIR registered at Mumbai and other States in the country, as per the status report, the petitioner is involved in four FIRs registered at Delhi.” 

-India Legal Bureau

]]> 116125