Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • CR.M.P.-Case No.2677 of 2016: Printed By: Guest Page 1 of 1

    Uploaded by

    Somu Shekar
    5 views1 page
    This document summarizes a court case from the Jharkhand High Court in India. [1] The petitioners filed an application to quash an order from a lower court that cancelled their bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants for their arrest. [2] The High Court ruled that the lower court's order was not sustainable, as it should have simply directed the petitioners to appear in person at the next hearing instead of cancelling bail. [3] Therefore, the High Court quashed the lower court's order and allowed the petitioners' application.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    40143f89-25d1-45f7-a9ad-7e8b6c2d6914

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case from the Jharkhand High Court in India. [1] The petitioners filed an application to quash an order from a lower court that cancelled their bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants for their arrest. [2] The High Court ruled that the lower court's order was not sustainable, as it should have simply directed the petitioners to appear in person at the next hearing instead of cancelling bail. [3] Therefore, the High Court quashed the lower court's order and allowed the petitioners' application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views1 page

    CR.M.P.-Case No.2677 of 2016: Printed By: Guest Page 1 of 1

    Uploaded by

    Somu Shekar
    This document summarizes a court case from the Jharkhand High Court in India. [1] The petitioners filed an application to quash an order from a lower court that cancelled their bail bonds and issued non-bailable warrants for their arrest. [2] The High Court ruled that the lower court's order was not sustainable, as it should have simply directed the petitioners to appear in person at the next hearing instead of cancelling bail. [3] Therefore, the High Court quashed the lower court's order and allowed the petitioners' application.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 1

    www.casemine.

    com

    Sunil Kumar And Ors v. The State Of Jharkhand

    11 Jan, 2017 | Jharkhand High Court

    CASE NO.

    CR.M.P.- Case No.2677 of 2016

    Important Paras

    JUDGEMENT

    ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, APP

    ---------- For the Petitioners : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate For the State : Mr. Krishna Shankar, APP ----- 02/11.1.2017 Heard the parties.

    In this application, the petitioners have prayed for quashing the order dated 14.7.2016, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial

    Magistrate, Porahat at Chaibasa in Manohar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2013, by which, bail bond of the petitioners has been cancelled and

    non bailable warrant of arrested has been ordered to be issued against the petitioners. It appears that on 6.6.2016, the accused

    persons were represented under section 317 cr.p.c. which was allowed. Subsequently on 14.7.2016, representative application

    under section

    317 Cr.P.C. was rejected and bail bond of the petitioners were cancelled and non bailable warrant of arrest was ordered to be issued

    against them. From the order dated 6.6.2016, it does not appear that the petitioners were directed to remain physically present before

    the court below. The composite order dated 14.7.2016 is not sustainable in the eyes of law principally for the reasons that learned

    court below should have directed the petitioners to remain physically present on the next date instead of cancelling bail bond and

    issuing non bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioners. Even if direction has been given to the petitioners on the preceding dates

    to appear, there was no occasion for the learned Magistrate to have rejected the representation under section 317 cr.p.c. and at the

    same time cancel the bail bond and issue non bailable warrant of arrest against him. In

    -2-

    such view of the matter, therefore, the impugned order dated 14.7.2016, passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate,

    Porahat at Chaibasa in Manohar P.S. Case No. 11 of 2013, being unsustainable in the eyes of law is hereby quashed and set aside.

    This application is allowed. (Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J) Rakesh/

    Printed by: Guest Page 1 of 1

    You might also like