HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
N. HARINATH, J
Zam Zam Educational Foundation – Appellant
Versus
The State of Andhra Pradesh – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. justification for non-bailable warrant issuance and the petitioner's absence. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. permit filing of fresh petition for warrant recall. (Para 3) |
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.1290 of 2025 in C.C.No.373 of 2018 on the file of the II Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Vijayawada. The petitioner is facing trail in C.C.No.373 of 2018 and was unable to appear for cross-examination of the complainant on 17.10.2024.
The learned Magistrate has issued Non-Bailable Warrant to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed a petition under Section 70(2) Cr.P.C., which was dismissed by the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate, while dismissing the petition, had also observed that the case is pending since 2018 and the warrants issued to the petitioner were earlier recalled on 02.11.2017, 30.01.2018, 24.08.2018, and 13.10.2023. It is also observed that the petitioner is continuously absent for several adjournments and the same is with an intent to drag on the proceedings. As such, the Court was not inclined to recall the warrant, as the petitioner did not submit any medical re
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.