1. Supreme Court extends stay on Dayanidhi Maran’s arrest in Telephone exchange case

Supreme Court extends stay on Dayanidhi Maran’s arrest in Telephone exchange case

The Supreme Court today extended the stay on a Madras High Court order cancelling the bail of former Telecom Minister and DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran in the alleged telephone exchange case.

By: | New Delhi | Published: September 14, 2015 7:55 PM
dayanidhi Maran

The apex court on August 12 had sought CBI’s response on Dayanidhi Maran’s plea challenging the High Court order and questioned its decision to arrest him in a case registered in 2013. (Express Photo)

The Supreme Court today extended the stay on a Madras High Court order cancelling the bail of former Telecom Minister and DMK leader Dayanidhi Maran in the alleged telephone exchange case.

A bench of justices T S Thakur and C Nagappan also granted two weeks to Maran to file a rejoinder to CBI’s reply.

The apex court on August 12 had sought CBI’s response on Dayanidhi Maran’s plea challenging the High Court order and questioned its decision to arrest him in a case registered in 2013.

Maran had moved the apex court yesterday challenging the Madras High Court’s decision to cancel his bail and asking him to surrender in a case.

The High Court had on August 10 cancelled Maran’s interim anticipatory bail and directed him to surrender before CBI in three days, holding that “prima facie” Maran had “misused” his office by obtaining phone connections illegally and the charges against him were backed by material.

It had also rejected Maran’s contention that CBI was seeking cancellation of his interim bail only to humiliate him.

CBI has registered an FIR against Maran and others alleging that over 300 high-speed telephone lines were provided at his residence here and extended to his brother Kalanithi Maran’s SUN TV channel to enable its uplinking when Dayanidhi Maran was Telecom Minister from 2004-07.

  1. Raviforjustice Raviforjustice
    Sep 15, 2015 at 6:54 am
    After all if the apex court can't protect the interests of former ministers atleast, then what will be its justification for existence?
    Reply

    Go to Top