Maran moves SC against Madras HC order cancelling his bail
The Supreme Court bench headed by Justice TS Thakur directed the hearing of matter on Wednesday after senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi told the court that dayanidhi Maran has been investigated in the matter twice in 2014 and twice in 2015.india Updated: Aug 11, 2015 15:04 IST
Former Union telecom minister Dayanidhi Maran moved the Supreme Court on Tuesday challenging the Madras high court's decision to cancel his bail and asking him to surrender in a case related to alleged installation of telephone exchange at his residence.
A three-judge bench comprising justices TS Thakur, V Gopala Gowda and R Banumathi allowed the plea for urgent hearing of the petition seeking anticipatory bail in the case. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Maran and sought urgent listing of his plea.
The Madras high court had cancelled Maran's interim anticipatory bail on Monday in the controversial telephone exchange case and directed him to surrender before the CBI within three days while rejecting his charges of political vendetta.
The high court held that "prima facie" Maran had "misused" his office by obtaining telephone connections "illegally" and allegations against him were backed by material.
CBI has registered an FIR against Maran and others alleging that more than 300 high-speed telephone lines were provided at his residence and extended to his brother Kalanithi Maran's SUN TV channel to enable its uplinking when Dayanidhi Maran was telecom minister from 2004-07.
Apprehending arrest in the case, Maran had moved the court and justice R Subbiah had on June 30 granted him anticipatory bail for six weeks subject to the condition that he appears before CBI on July 1 and cooperates in the investigation.
CBI later moved the high court seeking cancellation of the anticipatory bail on the ground that he was not cooperating with the investigation.
The high court rejected Maran's contention that CBI was seeking cancellation of his interim bail only to humiliate him.
The court noted that FIR was registered against Maran in 2013 and that had the agency wanted to arrest him it could have done so when he had appeared before it in January and October 2014 when there was no bail protection.