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

1959 Supreme(MP) 185

A.H.KHAN
ABDUL KARIM KHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
J.P.Gupta, Puttulal Dubey

A. H. KHAN, J.

( 1 ) THE circumstances in which this application for bail is directly submitted to the High Court are that the petitioner who is a legal practitioner is a resident of Shajapur. In para 12 of his affidavit dated 13th June 1959, he has stated that he could not move the Additional District Magistrate Shajapur for bail because he has gone to a link Court in connection with official work. There is a link Court at Rajgarh. It is further alleged that the Sessions Judge was on leave, therefore the Additional Sessions Judge could not hear his application for bail because unless a case is transferred to the Additional Sessions Judge by the Sessions Judge, he does not hear cases.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in this case is a lawyer who practises on me criminal side at Shajapur and in his application for bail, he has alleged that because he does Criminal cases, he has unfortunately incurred the displeasure of the Thanedar at Shajapur. The Thanedar who has filed an affidavit in reply has denied the existence of any unpleasant feelings. Without deciding the point whether any ill-feeling exists or not, I snail consider other facts which are of substance.

( 3 ) IT is alleged by the petiti










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