- (1.) THE petitioner Dr. Awadhesh Kumar has Prayed: "wherefore, It is most respectfully prayed that the Hon'ble Court may kindly he pleased to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of habeas corpus and the petitioner detenu may please be directed to he set at liberty forthwith with adequate and suitable compensation for the illegal detention. "
(2.) THERE were three annexures in the writ petition. First, the summon dated 28-7-1997 issued to a witness that is the petitioner by the Investigation Officer of the C. B. I. , Annexure-2 is the memo of arrest indicating the arrest of the petitioner and Annexure-3 is the applica tion moved by the petitioner before the Court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Central U. P. , Lucknow where the petitioner was produced after arrest. By supplementary affidavit the petitioner has filed a copy of the order dated 7-11-1997 where under the application for bail on behalf of the applicant was rejected. Shri Nandit Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner has been heard at length in support of this writ petition. In opposition shn Vireshwar Nath, learned Government Advocate has been heard for the respondents. It is admitted that order of taking cognizance has already been passed by the Special judge. It may he mentioned here that the petitioner is being tried for an alleged offences under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and also of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It may fur ther be mentioned that the cases challaned under the Prevention of Corruption Act are heard and decided by the special Judge under the relevant Act. The provisions indicate further that cognizance is permis sible even if the accused is not under arrest.
(3.) IT was vehemently argued by Shri Srivastava that the order by which the petitioner was summoned as witness should fore close the arrest of the petitioner as an accused. The argument misconceived. Any person who is sum moned as a witness and when materials exit prima facie indicating involvement as an accused, the arrest cannot be said to be without authority of law. Second argument advanced was that the memo of arrest does not include the ground on which the petitioner was being detained. The Arresting officer has clearly mentioned as per the Annexure-2 that: ". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . has been arrested today on 29-7-1997 at 1. 00 p. m. at CBI office, 7, Naval Kishore Road, Lucknow where he had come for interrogation. The grounds of his arrest that he is deeply involved in the above said case through which Govt. of II. P. was defrauded to the tune of (sic) prima facie ease is made out against said Shn (Dr.) Awadhesh Kumar under aforesaid offences and that the evidence collected so far, warrants, has arrest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " The names of the witnesses are men tioned in the memo in as much as it is written there under as to who the Inves tigating officer is and an information was also sent to the friends and relatives of the petitioner. The second argument is, there fore, also of no consequence. The last ar gument advanced was that since the charge-sheet papers were not furnished the remand order was bad. The application for bail which was decided by the learned Trial Judge has already been disposed of by him by a detailed speaking order. Sup plementary affidavit filed by the petitioner contains the copy of that order. Merits of the matter need not be gone into.;