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

2023 Supreme(P&H) 36

ANOOP CHITKARA
Jaswinder Singh @ Vicky – Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Umesh Aggarwal, Advocate, Harsimar Singh Sitta, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. -

FIR No.

Dated

Police Station

Sections

342

02.08.2016

Civil Lines, Amritsar

307, 506, 484, 171, 419, 420, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 411, 466, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC and 25, 27, 54 of Arms Act

1. Challenging the order of cancellation of bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants, vide order dated 21.12.2022, passed by learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar, due to the default in appearances before the trial court, the petitioner has come up before this court.

2. The nature of order this court proposes to pass, no response is required from the respondent.

3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the non-appearance was unintentional, without any endeavor to delay the trial, and due to factors beyond the petitioner's control.

4. The primary object of service is to secure the accused's presence in trial. The petitioner has approached this court on its own, establishing the bonafide at this stage. Without commenting on the case's merits, and in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and also for the reasons mentioned abo

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