Back
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
MUDE RAVIKANTH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel for petitioners submits (Para 4 , 5) |
| 2. only issue for consideration (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. non-bailable warrants should be avoided (Para 8) |
| 4. court discretion to issue summons (Para 9) |
| 5. court must issue summons (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. court can issue a warrant (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
ORAL ORDER
2. Heard Sri Mayur D. Bhanu, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent - State.
A crime comes to be registered against unknown persons in cr4ime No.242/2024, said to be on an information of one Police Inspector of the City Crime Branch, for the offences under Sections 8(c), 22(a), 22(b), 22(c), 25, 27 and 27(b) of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic substances Act and Sections 290 and 294 of the IPC. The police after completion of the investigation, file their final report on 30.09.2024. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the afore-quoted offences and issues process to secure the presence of the accused by issuance of the non-bailable warrant on 01.10.2024. The petitioners being aggrieved by the issuance of the non-bailab
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
