Facts are so glaring and the background setting so shocking, HC rightly granted interim protection from arrest in quashing petition: SC

The SC on July 20, 2021 {A P MAHESH COOPERATIVE URBAN BANK SHAREHOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION VS. RAMESH KUMAR BUNG AND ORS.} held that it   was   patently   an   election   dispute   which   was sought to be converted to a criminal case. It was held that more often than not election   disputes   are   fought   on   different turfs, such   as   polling booths, police stations and court rooms. It was held that sometimes, persons who raise these disputes manage to camouflage their real motive by words clothed in high moral fiber and strong legal content. It was further held but unfortunately, the petitioner could not do it successfully in this case, as the election disputes came to the court first before the petitioner   could   fall   back   upon   allegations   of   loan   fraud and fortunately, the High Court saw through the game. It was held that this is why the High Court in its impugned order, granted the extraordinary relief of stay of further proceedings including the arrest of Respondents 1 to 3 herein. It was held that the facts are so glaring and the background setting so shocking, that the High Court correctly found it to be a fit and proper case to grant interim reliefs to Respondents 1­3 herein.

It was held by the SC Bench, comprising of Justice Indira Banerjee & Justice V. Ramasubramanian, that in the order impugned in these petitions, the   High   Court   has   given   elaborate   reasons   as   to   how   the allegations of bank fraud were developed during the proceedings concerning allegations of election fraud. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be said to be bad. 

In present case, Challenging an order passed by the High Court for the State of Telangana   in   two   interlocutory   applications   granting   stay   of   all further proceedings including the arrest of the Respondents 1 to 3 herein   (petitioners before   the   High   Court), pending   two   main petitions for quashing the criminal complaints, the de facto complainant, has come up with these Special Leave Petitions before the SC.

The SC held that it is of the considered view that the High Court was   perfectly   justified   in   granting   interim   protection   to   the Respondents 1 to 3 herein and in ensuring that the supremacy of the ballot is not sabotaged by the authority of the police. Hence the SLPs   were   dismissed by the SC.   Consequently   the   applications   for   stay   were dismissed and the stay earlier granted was vacated by the SC.