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

2014 Supreme(Ori) 437

S.K.MISHRA
Dhaneswar Sahoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Orissa – Respondent


Order

20.6.2014 - Heard Mr. Himansubhusan Dash, learned counsel for the appellants-petitioners, and Mr. Anupam Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. This is an appeal against the order dated 27.4.2007 passed by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar in, Crl. Misc. Case No. 1/2006 directing each of the appellants-petitioners to pay Rs. 25,000/- only as penalty under Section 446 sub-clause (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code" for brevity).

3. The facts are not in dispute. The present appellants stood sureties for accused Sidheswar Mallik, who was charged under the provisions of the N.D.P.S. Act, in S.T. Case No. 17/150 of 1995 of the Court of learned Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Bhubaneswar. They executed bail bonds undertaking to produce the aforesaid accused, failing which they were to remit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the State. The case was posted to 02.08.2006 and on that date Sidheswar Mallik, was not present. Reminder was issued to the IIC Airfield P.S. to execute the N.B.W. and produce the accused. The bail bonds were forfeited on that date. Thereafter a separate









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