Citing SC vacation, CBI seeks extension of stay on effect of Deshmukh bail order

The CBI said it required time till January 3, stating that vacation benches at the Supreme Court are unavailable during its ongoing Christmas and/or winter break. The high court will hear the CBI application seeking an extension of time Wednesday.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Anil Singh told the bench that while the Court had granted bail to Deshmukh, the same was not to be effected for 10 days. The Supreme Court does not have a vacation bench during winter break and the said order staying the effect on bail be extended at least till January 3, he added.

Justice Karnik responded, “It was a question of someone’s liberty. You (CBI) asked for seven days, I gave 10 days (to stay the effect). You (CBI) file an application with reasons, let them (Deshmukh’s lawyers) get a chance to make their case.”

Advocate Aniket Nikam for Deshmukh said the Supreme Court has a vacation registrar and the agency could approach the same, but it was not exercising the procedures available.

The bench posted further hearings on the CBI application to Wednesday, December 21.

On December 12, after the order granting bail to Deshmukh was pronounced, the CBI counsel requested that the said order be made effective after 10 days. “…considering the nature of the controversy, in my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice to make the order effective after a period of ten (10) days from today (December 12),” Justice Karnik had noted.

Justice Karnik had observed that except for the statement of dismissed police officer Sachin Waze, the approver, none of the other statements recorded indicates that money was collected under the instructions of Deshmukh, and materials for relying on Waze’s statement can be examined during the trial.

The bench had also noted that Deshmukh was 73 years old and suffering from multiple ailments. “The applicant is no longer the home minister and therefore, there is no question of his influencing the investigation. The CBI may proceed with the investigation but not at the cost of the continued incarceration of the applicant,” the court had noted.