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

2000 Supreme(P&H) 644

V.K.BALI
Kimti Lal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. R.K. Handa, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajan Gupta, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Bali, J. (Oral) - Vide a detailed order dated May 19, 2000, running into fifteen pages, recorded in Crl. Misc. No. 10738-M of 2000, Kimti Lal Jain, applicant herein, was allowed anticipatory bail. Operative part of order aforesaid, passed by K.S. Kumaran, J. reads thus :-

"Accordingly this petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. However, if the association of the petitioner is necessary for the purpose of further investigation, the investigating officer shall issue notice to the petitioner giving him sufficient time to join investigation and on such notice, the petitioner shall join investigation. The petitioner shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Criminal Procedure Code"

2. Sub-section (2) of Section 438 Criminal Procedure Code deals with conditions that may be imposed when High Court or Court of Sessions makes a direction under sub- section (1). One such condition is that the person shall not leave India without the previous permission of





















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