ASG: Lets start with Section 126, it has three ingredients which are crucial. First is when an executive magistrate receives information, it is receipt of information. Second, that any person is likely to commit. It is anticipatory.
ASG: I dont know what to say regarding the time. Please see the scheme…
What is your reaction of 135 provisio A, where bond is given only for 127,128,129, though your notice say till pendency of enquiry… second is other than kalandra, was there any other material or enquiry by you to substantiate your opinion under 130 leading to a show cause notice: Court to ASG
Sankaranarayanan: There is an interlocutory application made. This is not a PIL.
He ends his submissions.
Sankaranarayanan: 135 provisio A comes at a later stage. As far as we are concerned, the question is flavour of 127,128,129 comes from public order aspect.
Lets assume that there are two groups of people of different caste. And they fight. That will be 126 or 128. These are few cases where aspects are of both (public order and peace): Court
Sankaranarayanan refers to judgments on the subject.
Sankaranarayanan: That failure to comply make me entitled to come here in Article 226.
Sankaranarayanan: If i were to engage with the merits of allegations, then my remedy is not here. I am saying compliance with law.
Sankaranarayanan: There is no application of mind to show that hearsay information was supportive.
Court: Question is why should at this stage go into this?
Are there reasons in writing? If there are reasons to show application of mind by SEM then i am out of here. But if it isn’t, then they are out of here: Sankaranarayanan
Sankaranarayanan: The constitutional bench says reasons in writing, says hearsay would be converted into substance only when you apply mind and that bonds can be only under 135 or 136.
Sankaranarayanan: At every stage you have to give in writing. Hearsay can become actionable for show cause notice only when you apply mind to it. Bonds can never be on showcause notice stage.