<p>Days after providing relief to former Karnataka Minister R Roshan Baig, the Supreme Court has granted protection from arrest to his wife and son in a disproportionate assets case to the tune of 56.71 lakh. </p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the Karnataka government, represented by advocate V N Raghupathy, on a petition by Baig against the HC's order of November 3, 2020.</p>.<p dir="auto">After hearing advocate Gaurav Agrawal on behalf of Baig and his family, the court ordered that they should not be arrested till the next date of hearing. Earlier, the same bench had on January 6 provided similar to Baig, former Karnataka Minister and six times MLA.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC had dismissed a joint petition by Baig, his wife Sabiha Roshan alias Sabiha Fathima and his son Ruman Baig Rehman for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them for amassing wealth to the unknown sources of income. It had upheld the order of the special court passed on July 12, 2012, referring to a private complaint for investigation by the Lokayukta. </p>.<p dir="auto">It had also confirmed another order of May 5, 2018, for issuing summons against them under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, though the investigating agency filed a 'B' report, saying the disproportionate assets were found to be less than 10% and the accused were entitled not be prosecuted.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC, however, had gone a step ahead to hold that no sanction was required in the matter by setting aside the order of the special judge mandating it.</p>.<p dir="auto">In his plea, Baig said the entire investigation was vitiated in law as a sanction for prosecution was not taken at a pre-cognisance stage before referring the matter to the investigation.</p>.<p dir="auto">Among others, he further claimed that the order issuing summons was to be set aside as it did not record prima facie satisfaction that the case would result in conviction as mandated earlier by the top court's judgement.</p>
<p>Days after providing relief to former Karnataka Minister R Roshan Baig, the Supreme Court has granted protection from arrest to his wife and son in a disproportionate assets case to the tune of 56.71 lakh. </p>.<p dir="auto">A bench of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy issued notice to the Karnataka government, represented by advocate V N Raghupathy, on a petition by Baig against the HC's order of November 3, 2020.</p>.<p dir="auto">After hearing advocate Gaurav Agrawal on behalf of Baig and his family, the court ordered that they should not be arrested till the next date of hearing. Earlier, the same bench had on January 6 provided similar to Baig, former Karnataka Minister and six times MLA.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC had dismissed a joint petition by Baig, his wife Sabiha Roshan alias Sabiha Fathima and his son Ruman Baig Rehman for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them for amassing wealth to the unknown sources of income. It had upheld the order of the special court passed on July 12, 2012, referring to a private complaint for investigation by the Lokayukta. </p>.<p dir="auto">It had also confirmed another order of May 5, 2018, for issuing summons against them under various provisions of the IPC and the Prevention of Corruption Act, though the investigating agency filed a 'B' report, saying the disproportionate assets were found to be less than 10% and the accused were entitled not be prosecuted.</p>.<p dir="auto">The HC, however, had gone a step ahead to hold that no sanction was required in the matter by setting aside the order of the special judge mandating it.</p>.<p dir="auto">In his plea, Baig said the entire investigation was vitiated in law as a sanction for prosecution was not taken at a pre-cognisance stage before referring the matter to the investigation.</p>.<p dir="auto">Among others, he further claimed that the order issuing summons was to be set aside as it did not record prima facie satisfaction that the case would result in conviction as mandated earlier by the top court's judgement.</p>
