MUNAWAR vs STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(SC) 64

ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, B.R.GAVAI
MUNAWAR – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Sr. Adv., Mr. Saurabh Kirpal, Adv., Mr. Harshit Sethi, Adv., Mr. Rishi Sehgal, Adv., Mr. Rahil Mahajan, Adv., Mr. Keshavam Chaudhri, Adv., Ms. Ria Khanna, Adv., Ms. Anzu. K. Varkey, AOR

ORDER :

1. The learned counsel has pointed out to us that quite apart from the fact that the allegations made in the FIR are vague that the procedure contained in Section 41 Cr.P.C. as adumbrated by our Judgment in “Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Anr.”, reported in

(2014) 8 SCC 273, has not been followed before arresting the petitioner. This being the case, we issue notice in both the petitions, and stay the Judgment of the High Court. The petitioner is released on ad-interim bail on conditions to the satisfaction of the trial court.

2. In the meantime, there shall be stay of the production warrants as well.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document