SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1991 Supreme(Raj) 778

RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
N.K.Jain, J.
Manohar Singh - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. Misc. Petition No. 313 of 1991.
Decided On : 25-07-1991

Advocates:
For the Petitioner:N.K. Rastogi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: S.K. Vyas, Public Prosecutor.

The court has the discretion to grant an extension for filing the surety bond to secure the ends of justice in cases of reasonable delay.

Headnote:

Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code - Surety Bond - The court granted an extension of time for filing the surety bond due to the delay in the record reaching the trial court, deeming it necessary to secure the ends of justice.

Fact of the Case:

The accused petitioner failed to furnish the surety bond within the specified time, leading to the trial court issuing a warrant of arrest. The petitioner sought an extension, citing the delay in the record reaching the trial court from the High Court.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was a reasonable ground for the delay in submitting the surety bond and granted an extension of one month to comply with the order.

Issues: Delay in filing the surety bond, warrant of arrest issued by the trial court, and the petitioner's application for extension of time.

Ratio Decidendi: The court deemed it necessary to grant an extension to secure the ends of justice due to the delay in the record reaching the trial court from the High Court.

Final Decision: The miscellaneous petition was disposed of with the observation to grant one month's time to the petitioner to comply with the order of the court.

JUDGMENT

1. - Mr. Rastogi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has moved an application Under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code stating that the accused petitioner could not furnish surety bond before the trial court within two months from the date of the order of this Court dated 1.5.1991. He has submitted that the accused appeared before the trial court in time but the record of the trial court along-with the copy of the judgment of this Court did not reach upto 8th July, 1991 and by that time the months there granted by this Court had expired and the trial court has declined to accept and verify the surety bond. Under, these circumstances, the delay in filing the personal bond is neither wilful and beyond his control due to non receipt of the record in the trial court from the High Court. The trial court has issued a warrant of arrest on 11.7.1991. The accused has also filed an affidavit in support of the application Mr. Vyas has not opposed this prayer.

2. I, Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusal of the file shows that the record in this case was sent by the office on 24.6.1991. Thus, I consider it proper that there is sufficient and reasonable ground for not submitting the surety bond in time i.e. within two months from 1.5.91. In this view of the matter to secure ends of justice. I deem it proper to grant one month's time to the petitioner to comply with the order of this Court dated 1.5.1991.

3. In the result, this miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the above observations.Order Accordingly.

*******


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top