BIG RELIEF FOR CHAITANYA BAGHEL! Supreme Court Refuses to Cancel Bail in Chhattisgarh Liquor Scam

[00:00:00]Minister has become very really very academic. Item number two may I point out how he was arrested he challenged the arrest. He has now been enlarged on B >> this aspect ground is that you have not taken permission for further investigation. This honorable court granted this has already reply or I can start this a luxury litigation. It's not a luxury litigation. Thousands of cross law which your lordship had observed that this evergreening of complaints which happens without permission again and again with a non-ending no ending situations as far as investigators are >> concerned here in view of the subsequent events that he has been released on bail >> that's a different issue this in this notice was issued to examine this point as to whether in complaint cases the aspect of seeking permission before the court at the time of investigation further investigation is required or is a there is a there is a gap as far as the law is concerned out here. It needs your lordship's attention. No definitely that's why we are saying we will keep the question of law in some matter which is actually live we will decide this issue >> no lord here because there is an aspect interpretation as far as vija madarlal is also concerned that portion has got ambiguity and that is >> vij mother is subject to a judge review which is being heard by decided by the honorable >> this aspect is not open there >> so that issue what Those are on other issues. My lord, the scope of reference there is very limited.

[00:01:31]>> Independently.

[00:01:32]>> Yes, independent.

[00:01:34]>> Why should we take it up independent?

[00:01:35]>> Your lordship had last time when I had argued this, your lordship was of the opinion >> concerned and >> your lordship keeps this issue open. I have no issues on that.

[00:01:45]>> We'll keep this in this case investigation. If your lordship keeps it open, I have no permitted further investigation. This point doesn't this matter. respond doesn't arise.

[00:01:56]>> That's correct.

[00:01:56]>> When we take up the vision with you, please argue that I >> it's very feminine. We'll do that of the subsequent events namely that the prisoner has been enlarged on WSA.

[00:02:15]The question of law uh we we we are the opinion that producing can be disposed of at this stage >> by keeping the question of law opened >> also for cancellation of bail everybody for cancellation of bail >> challenge on the bail order >> challenge not cancellation >> all >> yes seven months have gone by my lord I don't know >> the legality of the order is very important for Mr. Jet Malan.

[00:02:49]>> Yes.

[00:02:50]>> Very well. Very [laughter] >> particularly when it's perverse >> correct.

[00:02:57]>> What is your number Mr. Gent number three? number three I think >> we can we can in your case we can pass a very one line descent order that since no incident of misuse of concessional bill has been reported >> 717 >> that's why I said mine is mine is ours against that pass what is sauce for the goose should be sauce for the may >> since we are not allowing to open up a issue which is factually not that relevant. We understand your concern about 45 mm may not be there but other ground the order is perverse or then the has to go.

[00:03:47]>> Yes.

[00:03:48]Has to go has to go if we choose it will go. [laughter] >> We will keep the question of not a jurisdiction to interfere with every wrong. My lords may say that the judge >> yes issues are kept open item three may like judgement both both three and four >> separate he's saying no you have to give a four no notice has been issued the shortcut in this matter because I have a really really I have many vy grounds in this matter and there's been an abuse of process in this in this case is wrong when says you have to have given under section 50 before arrest.

[00:04:31]Unheard of.

[00:04:32]>> It's never happened that my learned friend appears and the judgment is right. Of course, it's always wrongless.

[00:04:39]>> Otherwise, you're on the wrong side of the law always.

[00:04:47]>> Give me papers quickly.

[00:06:11]consistent with judgment of dishonorable court. They have a question may be kept open.

[00:06:15]>> Question of law are both matters. No m please your loyers may hear me and then if your loyers feel that please give me a chance to give the state a chance because this is a very important accuse in the matter. Please hear us and then let us have the satisfaction but we've been heard at least >> is in your custody now not arrested arrested has been taken >> just recently that's still not arrested >> no witness but bansal will be used as a witness he's going to be a witness in this case >> as an accomplice for the ED >> yes >> Mr. You are so experienced in this branch of law. Yes. A proclaimed offender is a witness.

[00:07:06]>> Not a proclaimed was a proclaimed.

[00:07:08]>> No, it can be >> foreign. It can be. We never say it can't be.

[00:07:14]>> But first of all, it was never coming to that. I heard it.

[00:07:21]>> In fact, the judge in fact remarks on it.

[00:07:23]>> Yes. The judge passed remarks on it.

[00:07:26]That's the best evidence of an account only evidence >> apart from drivers and servants.

[00:07:33]>> Drivers of the faith and servants of the faith.

[00:07:39]>> Why are you so class conscious against?

[00:07:41]>> No, you only had pointed out we have never >> you raised the class issue.

[00:07:48]>> No, >> that's a very elitist statement to make.

[00:07:54]Yes, you're making something to say about this.

[00:07:58]>> Yes.

[00:07:59]>> Can I start? Of >> course.

[00:08:04]>> The imbued order really spans about 10 paragraphs below. And before I start, I just want to point out to your lordships the difference between a cancellation just a couple of paragraphs. So many this is too well settled and your lordships know about it. But I just want to draw your attention because you know that's the scope of this particular can order seeking revision. No it's a judgment in Mahipal's case item >> reported at it's two uh 2020 to sec page 118 and I'll only trouble your lordships with well traverse territory two paragraphs.

[00:08:55]Paragraph 16. If your watch kindly turns to at page 125 16 at page 125.

[00:09:16]The considerations that guide the power of an appellet court in assessing the correctness of an order granting bail stand on a different footing from an assessment of an application for the cancellation of bail. The correctness of an order granting bail is tested on the annual of whether there was an improper or arbitrary exercise of the discretion to the grant of bail. My lord, I hope to make that proposition good in the facts of this judgment. The test is whether the order granting bail is perverse, illegal or unjustified.

[00:09:47]On the other hand, an application for cancer to bail is generally examined on the ambulance of the existence of supervening circumstances. That's not my case over here. Or violations of the conditions of bail by a person to whom bail is being granted.

[00:09:59]>> In Nu Yada versus UP, the accused was granted bail by the high court. In an appeal against the order of the high court, a two judge bench of this court surveyed the president of the principles that guide the grant of bail. Deeper Krishna J as he then was held as under.

[00:10:14]It is well settled law that cancellation of bail after it is granted because the accused has misconducted himself or of some supervening circumstances warranting such cancellation have occurred is in a different compartment altogether then an order granting bail which is unjustified, illegal and perverse. If in a case relevant factors which should have been taken into consideration while dealing with the applications for bail have not been taken note of or bail is founded on irrelevant considerations in disputably the Supreme Court can set aside the order of such a grant of bail. Such a case belongs to a different category and in the separate realm while dealing with a case of the second nature the court does not dwell upon violation of conditions by the accused or supervening circumstances that happen subsequently.

[00:10:55]It is on it on the contrary delves into the justifiability and soundness of the order passed by the court.

[00:11:04]>> What this judgment holds was held two decades ago >> in 1990. Yes.

[00:11:10]>> When when the first judgment came up that this is an interference under 482 of the code of criminal procedure in respect of an order. Yes.

[00:11:18]>> Which is not sustainable in law.

[00:11:21]>> Yes ma'am.

[00:11:22]>> In these situations we need to be very careful. Yes.

[00:11:25]>> Because after all a wrong application of law, >> yes, >> an intestic order passed by a court.

[00:11:32]>> Yes.

[00:11:33]>> Should not be a ground to knock out.

[00:11:35]>> Yes.

[00:11:35]>> The right to liberty of an individual.

[00:11:38]>> No. Unless it's purpose.

[00:11:40]>> It may be purpose. Let us say we have held.

[00:11:43]>> Yes.

[00:11:44]>> Non-recording of reason is purposeity.

[00:11:46]>> Yes.

[00:11:46]>> Correct.

[00:11:47]>> Yes, ma'am.

[00:11:47]>> A judge in a single line says I grant liable to be set aside. Yes ma'am.

[00:11:54]>> Is it under article 136 the right approach? Because under article 136 we are not so concerned with the correctness of an order.

[00:12:04]>> Yes.

[00:12:04]>> We are concerned with the balance of liberty.

[00:12:07]>> Yes.

[00:12:08]>> Against rule of law.

[00:12:09]>> Yes.

[00:12:10]>> So in this situation >> yes >> to put or pitch the liberty of an individual >> on the legal artistry of an order or the judicial sustainance of an order >> may be the wrong approach. On the other hand, we should dig deeper.

[00:12:26]>> Yes.

[00:12:26]>> And en see what withstanding the illegality in an order whether the scales of justice require deprivation of the >> this is where Mr. Jetman >> this bench was seeking to persuade you irrespective of the illegality.

[00:12:44]>> Yes.

[00:12:45]>> Which we would definitely not touch and keep the issues open. Yes, >> we do not feel >> yes >> that this is and as the honorable chief justice indicated the absence of a clear breach of supervening conditions.

[00:12:57]>> Yes, >> we do not feel that the scales of justice would be served in going into the correctness of an order and guillotining liberty on that score.

[00:13:07]Brother your Lord has has insinuated a certain further test apart from >> exactly what goes through our mind today. Yes sir.

[00:13:17]>> Because we have developed an interesting Jewish prudence. Yes.

[00:13:21]>> The jurist prudence of review [clears throat] >> not merit review but a judicial review jurisdiction to test liberty. We would request you as one of the most experienced advocates at the bar, senior advocates >> that is it a correct approach and particularly in the court of last resort >> that the correctness of an order becomes the sole and only test to deprive liberty where liberty had been restored >> or there should be another layer. Okay, the order is wrong. the reasons are absent. But when a court interferes on article 136, it interferes on the anvil whether the the continuence of liberty is so egregious that it affects the administration of justice. And if it does not, why should we interfere? There may be wrong orders right, left and center. And this is where the bulk of interlocatory bail jurist prudence we have developed in the court of last resort. This it was never Mr. Jet Malani the court in the 80s when justice Bhagwati said that orders of bail should rest at the high court. Yes ma'am. I I but that was the old practice but no years the treasuries liberty deprived.

[00:15:15]the scales are completely different as an enforcer of article 30 through article 32 21 rights.

[00:15:22]>> Yes sir.

[00:15:22]>> But when it's an dimminion of article 21 rights we have to see the balance of 21 right of the victim and the commitment of the courts to the societal interest of administration of criminal justice.

[00:15:36]These are the guiding principles.

[00:15:38]>> Yes ma'am. May I just say this >> not nittyg gritties of correctness of >> I'm not into nittygritties matters of brave substance >> is an order completely founded on administrative law >> yes >> brought into article 21 and that is where we have a serious reservation on this judgment >> no that was the old practice if your lordships want to revert to the old practice >> absolutely >> I have no difficulty I'd >> say the old practice may I just say something >> this is the reason why The number of SLPs have purged in the last couple of decades.

[00:16:14]>> Cancellations.

[00:16:15]>> Cancellations. Repeat it. Just Mr. Jet Malani advise us as an amicus.

[00:16:20]>> Yes ma'am. I fully agree.

[00:16:22]>> This is the concern of the court. Today every bench has not less than eight >> 10 SLPs against interlocatory bail jury.

[00:16:33]>> 420 matters. 409 matters.

[00:16:36]420 anticipatory cancellation.

[00:16:38]>> No, that's going to be that's going to be music to their ears.

[00:16:41]>> No, no, it's not. It's music to your ears as well. D this side.

[00:16:45]>> Just say this. I >> Why we are so concerned?

[00:16:49]>> Yes.

[00:16:49]>> If a prosecutor and an investigator >> Yes.

[00:16:52]>> rests so much on interlocatory liberties, >> yes, >> his ultimate duty to procure a conviction is lessened.

[00:17:03]>> Yes. You can justify social accountability through continued under trial detention. At the same time absolve yourself from the higher test of of ensuring a foolproof conviction trial. This is where our jurist students of bringing in so much of correctness of an order of bail is in fact tilting the scale for a prosecutor who can ensure continued detention in one hand and be absolved of the responsibility of a fair just trial which the victim wants for conviction.

[00:17:48]See how many cases 20 73% of under trial of detained details are under trials and what is the conviction rate today it's increased to around 40% to 50%. So not less than one/ird of those under trials are acquitted and mind you these are not always honorable acquitt because the investigator slipped the prosecutor failed.

[00:18:18]>> Yes.

[00:18:19]>> So this is where the attention should lie the accountability should lie that we have been able to procure a conviction not procure a cancellation.

[00:18:28]>> But I don't take great pride in cancellation.

[00:18:31]We my god we often don't challenge orders of the high court where the courts are right is right and deathani these observations that we make from the bench >> yes >> are observations of concern >> yes >> in the administration of criminal justice and not liberty of x y or the respondent before us we are least concerned about that now I I but I am fully aware but lord I I I respectfully agree with every word that has fallen from your lordship's mouth. May I just say this? There are cases today, but your lordships My lords are right. The order may be bad in law but it may not warrant cancellation. That's what my lord was saying.

[00:20:27]>> But if the order is bad in law and my lords do not interfere. This order will be used for getting getting >> that will that is one aspect which which I have to take care of. Mr. >> They're all on bail all accuser. There's another aspect another thing that this court has declared >> therefore that >> that bail orders do not lay down any proposition of >> that's right >> they do not we what we are seeing 40page bail order in PMLA cases 50page bail order in UAPA cases why a judge's time needs to be aortioned understanding the extent and the depth of the consequence of his My lots are right but bail orders are cited as precedents >> and even interim bail orders are cited.

[00:21:16]>> No no the judge has himself said the judge in the order has said that they should not be used in any other matter. The judge himself has said what >> why for this individual then why why is that exception made for this individual?

[00:21:31]>> 52 of them all of them are on bail or half of them have not even been arrested.

[00:21:34]>> No >> and trial has not >> trial has not started. 24. I'm facing this.

[00:21:50]That's what he said in fact.

[00:21:57]>> Yeah. Yeah. This both in both matters himself.

[00:22:24]>> [clears throat] >> Many times bada hard cases making bad law.

[00:22:33]>> It's also something to do hard cases make good law.

[00:22:38]>> Yes.

[00:22:39]>> Preventive detention.

[00:22:40]>> Yes.

[00:22:40]>> That is not cheap. Hard cases making bad law.

[00:22:43]>> Yes. Many at times we do not want to challenge me. Just a minute observation that it will not be used for other less said about the learned judges order the better. I I I want you my now >> please do not bring up the facts of your case. No, there are certain very serious reservations we have on that.

[00:23:02]>> Let's we are not on that.

[00:23:03]>> So what happens is this follow if a bail order is wrong or law then the principle of par is applied and it is percolates that should be prevented. Marity should not apply where the law is laid down is not correct. The lordships had in Amarani party the first time this court started this bail cancellation but that was an egregious >> cancellation application will not be filed >> that Krishna money case >> yes Krishna was 99 I think >> 98 >> from ' 90s it started at >> yes >> and crystallized it my lord >> I was on the other side in one of those kids where Raakar Andhra Pradesh versus Prabhakar Ra the Chief Justice would know in Delhi the bail orders were halfway >> last time he suffered a canc started very late >> 80s the talking about the early 80s blood >> early 80s I'm talking one half >> that's why I'm saying blood used to be her bail wants to be executed.

[00:24:11]>> That's what I'm saying. Slowly slowly I just want to say >> what you are saying ' 70s 80s court what bail orders put me on the defensive and case I will >> even if you remember misa cases >> yes >> misa cases where high courts have released detive detention >> yes >> one page order >> yes >> we are not satisfied with the communication of grounds >> order satisfied no that in preventive detention on the the standard should be higher.

[00:24:45]>> Yeah.

[00:24:47]>> No doubt about it.

[00:24:48]>> I'm with your logic on that >> and the greatest leader of the bar on the criminal side >> the senior Mr. J >> the senior Mr. The jet man adhere to that principle.

[00:24:59]>> Okay.

[00:25:01]>> The the law books are replete with his [laughter] >> just as an aside just as an aside and particularly in preventive detention. My lord but that doesn't stop >> learning experience. Yes.

[00:25:13]>> Worked with Mr. >> of course it always was I have had the great privilege of doing that.

[00:25:18]>> Yes. But this may >> but what your lordships have said mad are patient words that the bar must absorb because this is the way judous prudence must be must move forward. We argue for days and days on bail the judge is forced to give an order because you make so many >> I say from my personal experience that the honorable the chief justice's order in Nazim >> really created an avenue for release under article 21.

[00:25:47]>> Yes. with in light of the statuto bars.

[00:25:50]>> Absolutely. That's the first case of first case and >> we have always even at the high court >> I don't know why serving in the high court >> we were struggling when we find the balance between >> and continued detention. The irony is becoming oppressive breaking.

[00:26:10]>> The irony is that despite that pathbreaking judgment which we have cited in every court in the last five years some courts have still lord not followed the mandate of that judgment still lord we have to go on struggling after that judgment whether high court and I'm sorry to say sometimes even the reason again is the species of argument advanced by Mr. Mani where the superior courts are brought to account that in judicial review the order is violating the statutory bar. So don't go into article correct analysis.

[00:26:50]>> That's correct.

[00:26:51]>> Right.

[00:26:52]>> And that is why which is prompted me to say that article 136 is not a judicial review.

[00:27:00]>> Deeply grateful to your lord. the repository of ensuring justice and interpretation of the constitution and not correct every wrong level near judicial review and administrative law principle. [clears throat] >> Absolutely right deeply applies >> we'll keep the issues open Mr. Ive heard your lordship I'm only going to argue faithfully to my brief and what I think is should be the outcome of this case your lordships have told me >> Mr. Meta himself has appeared in number of cases in Ahmedabad. Yes, >> in 2003 2004 then >> those cases >> the first case was uh Bihar legal services authority five judge bench where they say that high court is the last arbiter that is arbiter justice >> justice bhagat that high bail order should rest at the high court that's right >> unless it's the ' 90s which really made the changes and prabhakar now and another case coming from Andhra Pradesh Bimal something I forget the name >> it is difficult that now high courts are also taking very rigid view in granting >> that's true that's true >> six months taken for disposal Mr. Sometimes the high courts also travel >> on the grounds which can never be a ground for bail that meord sometimes lead the prosecution to come before your lordship >> one of course this court is partly responsible for one problem in bail matters where the short orders were passed so started not enough not enough judicious but in the mind of that I must started that so the hyper judges is in a quantity. If I write half a page, the Supreme Court will say no reason. That's right.

[00:28:55]>> If I write below a long order, then the another >> exact if you write a wrong lengthy order, you are bound to somewhere >> somewhere. That's correct. Correct.

[00:29:04]Correct. You will test the marriage or you will do my lord. My lord, I I without going into the merits of what I'm submitting lord it would be hazardous lord if the high court passes my lord onepage order. Nowadays it better they give reasons.

[00:29:21]>> It can be >> 3 four pages.

[00:29:23]>> Yes. It it not be >> it need not be an article for a law review.

[00:29:28]>> This is 50 pages.

[00:29:29]>> I always I always say that a judgment and article for a law review has to have difference.

[00:29:36]>> Yesterday there was a petition.

[00:29:39]We have every day we have four or five repetition in our court where 32 is invoked to direct the I code to take a >> That's right. That's right. And invariably we are don't we are not entertaining we are for the we are not to run the roster of the but yesterday there was a matter where an advocate is in custody >> last more than two years >> on a complaint filed by another advocate for >> and for last two years his bail application is not being decided by what to do but >> if advocate has failed to secure a order on marriage for last more than two years in his bail application we can simply visualize that what must be happen we know of applicants whose bails are not heard for 2 three years but in alahhabad with 300 bales it's not only the judge who's to blame even the lawyers they will take a passover passover in alhabad means for the next week because there are 300 bales it will not come up only >> that high court is overburdened high court >> that's true that's true >> the amount of work the judges are doing there is also remarkable this point We are even >> 4328 was not available in lab.

[00:30:52]>> That's right. That's right.

[00:30:54]>> It used to go before a division bend in a 482 jurisdiction.

[00:30:57]>> That's correct. [laughter] >> He didn't this reason part is the one which is clogging every 15 20 page in every matter if the judge has to give me the honorable judge has said the best >> partly the fault of the lawyer as well.

[00:31:09]>> Yes. In Koland Chakraorti speaking I think justice MK Mukhar GI clarifies that it is just an indicator of the working of the mind of the church nothing more >> that should be reflected >> that should be reflected nothing more >> anyway even then when we sit in article 13 solicitor >> let us say a judge >> will that be a justification >> it's neither an appellet jurisdiction nor a judicial review jurisdiction that every error needs to be corrected >> sense of the because we just say that leave it at that in this case why under article 226 or 227 we have 227 also is a very restrictive jurisdiction but 226 we have to interfere >> that's correct anyway >> in my matter I'm called in the other court I'll satisfied if I'm protected as far as the questions of law >> questions of law >> yes we have no problems My lord, that just leaves me for your lordship to get rid of my lord. your lordship s >> we have heard please let me >> we know that you are >> not in this >> let your lordship be hear that's all I'm saying can you can you please kindly hear me >> I I'm not being weak I've seen goes for it's very weighty your loes have put the weight of pressing it against me justice bati and my lord if your loes were to say today we are going to seize >> we are going to revert to the old practice we will not interfere So consequently we are not we are not inclined if you say is being dictated. Especially petition is dismissed. How the question is >> my judge my client is innocent deserves equit and the shortest judgment was he is not I am your client is not convicted. [laughter] in it's quoted in satend [clears throat] the bail act of England and you know look itself preserves liberty it says when you grant bail you need not record reasons when you refuse bail you have to >> that's correct that's how it should be >> a very interesting statuto bas in all humility in some judgement Please kindly say that >> it's already said it is required to be refreshed. Lord, >> we don't go into the merits of this case but there are several things which prompted us to come before your required WhatsApp messages between the judge and the I restrain Mr. Haran from making any reference. I'm saying that it is I'm not appearing not Mr. But sometimes a restatement of the law is necessary. It's a restatement. Kindly restate that and emphasize on Najib. It will go a long way in Lord setting this top problems over.

[00:35:02]Lords are passing the same order in my matter without >> putting the questions of law open. What is the prejudice?

[00:35:11]>> No, no, there's more than that. If your lordships are inclined not to interfere under 136 though although you have cited my lord weighty presidents against me you've also quoted my legacy against me use my legacy against me I still think this is a case for interference under you >> you are you are the bearer of one of the oldest and most glorious legacies of this I I am grateful for that my lord I and now my lord since Your lordships are so strongly against this. As I said my lord if your lordships were to revert to the old practice. So my lord bitterly put down by justice bhwati in that judgment that we will not interfere. If that was a standard thing I I I say today that this is a case where your lordships on a is a perverse judgment but my lord looking at my lord your reluctance I'm willing my lord to walk away from this court disappointed although I feel this is a good case. But on on one ground me the judge has passed and me it shows it shows a state of mind. The judge has passed unnecessary strictures on the investigation.

[00:36:20]First of all my lord he has given bail to this man on completely flimsy grounds. This man has not been in long incarceration.

[00:36:28]He was arrested it on 24th September last year.

[00:36:32]He's been incarcerated for 3 months. He was released on 3rd of January. In October, he filed a bail application in the sessions court. We got stuck with that. In November, he filed a bail application in the high court. We had to deal with that. 3 months which he's been incarceration, my agency which I represent, EO in Chhattisgarh has substantially been preoccupied because he's an influential powerful. He's the son of the chief minister, then chief minister of Chhattisgarh. He's a weighty power and sometimes >> the best judgment seem to come my lord when powerful people are involved but that that practice should be that practice should be avoided and in this case I'M NOT LEAVING IT at that I'm not leaving it at that I'm saying that this is a perverse judgment as laid down by mahipal I won't go into >> observation Mr. Yes.

[00:37:23]>> The history of criminal law in this country is replete with personalities.

[00:37:27]Bajan Lala Gandhi on due process. Yes.

[00:37:31]Yes. Yes. Gandhi translation Gandhi translation of >> the high and mighty whose liberty or whose reputation was at stake in that the law was tested.

[00:37:43]>> No no don't name anybody. What's the point? Let's not get into all this please.

[00:37:47]>> So just name people. Now it matter is over. And one of the matter which started my lord here my I started by saying that the material which I have >> not before my lord the chief justice my lord present chief justice earlier your lordships may have to take a decision on the administrative side so there are issues my lord when I seriously that's very serious >> I'm not appearing in this Mr. Raju is appearing but I remember when this happened in this some other case not >> no this very individual's case >> not in this individual's case same >> another >> that is 5 years ago >> no no not >> 5 years ago >> no let's not get it you are not aware you are not aware there were a bunch of WhatsApp messages which we have said shared between two constitutional functionaries but I'm not going beyond that >> no I'm aware of that there's nothing to do with this case anyway.

[00:38:46]>> I just summarized what >> no >> I'm I'm sure you wanted to get over very fast but just give me just give me my place in the sun for a short while.

[00:38:59]>> You have you have all of you have had a very long federation on history and past judgments. I just want to say a few things. I bow to your lordships. If that's the practice as I said which your lordships want to revert to I wholeheartedly welcome it as a senior member of the bar that your lordships will never interfere in orders of the high court but it will not be possible.

[00:39:20]Now this is one such case I'm not going to go into. I'm going to concede that your lordships have a right or a discretion under 136 and in this case your lordships feel that this is not a case for exercise of their discretion.

[00:39:35]without hearing me though I I regrettably must say because there are drowns by your discretion should be exercised in favor of cancelelling them or setting aside bail but my lord the mindset of this judge requires to be dealt with by your lordship by at least my lord expend expanding those remarks without that my lord there'll be grave injustice to the investigating aud super pleasable and perverse in law.

[00:40:18]>> Mr. Jeff please indicate to us three porative observations against the investigation next >> observations against the investigation >> the observation however >> which are tend to That includes personal prosecution are completely uncalled for and are hereby >> all issues are kept open.

[00:41:03]>> The all issues are kept open to be by the trial court.

[00:41:09]the question of law.

[00:41:11]>> Yeah.

[00:41:13]>> Deeply >> and this will not act as a precedent in any other case.

[00:41:17]>> This is already said.

[00:41:18]>> I did hear that. Sorry.

[00:41:20]>> It's already there in the order itself.

[00:41:26]>> Yes. Mr. Haran, you have followed that closely. Yeah, I know that. I know there in the high court. I saw that. I'm grateful man for that.

[00:41:33]>> Very good. Very good.

[00:41:35]>> I was I was not observing anything. I was not giving any opinion but there were reasons now that the matter is over I know something on administrative s yes something very very serious obligations a very strange very strange thing. Why?