Criminal Application No. 821 of 2009 · Uttarakhand High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The petition is disposed of with the direction that the
Provisions considered
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 s. 307
Judgment
Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate holding brief of Mr. S.K. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. M.A. Khan, Brief Holder for the State HON. DHARAM VEER, J. This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed against the order dated
Operative part
10.1.2008 and 28.10.2009 passed by Assistant Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.41/2007 u/s 307 IPC, whereby the non- bailable warrant has been ordered to be issued against the petitioner Prashidh Narayan Singh and the personal bond and sureties executed by him have been forfeited as he did not appear on the said dates fixed in the trial court. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes before me that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on the next date fixed in the trial court. Based on this undertaking, I set aside the impugned orders dated 10.1.2008 and 28.10.2009 passed by the Assistant Sessions Judge, Nainital in Sessions Trial No.41/2007. The petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall appear before the trial court on the next date fixed i.e. on 25.11.2009. However, if the petitioner does not appear in the trial court on the said date, the aforesaid impugned orders shall revive and become operational in all respects. RG (Dharam Veer, J.) 03.11.2009
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The petition is disposed of with the direction that the
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — s. 307.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Uttarakhand High Court, on 03 Nov 2009. The bench was DHARAM VEER.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.