Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.22 seconds)
Documents citing P.Usman @ Ismail vs The Sub Inspector Of Police on 7 November, 2007

Baba Tek Singh And Another vs The State Of Punjab on 29 November, 2010

It appears that the petitioners earlier approached this court by way of a petition (Crl. Misc. No. M-33381 of 2010), which was disposed of on 15th November, 2011 (as stated in note-I on page 19 of the petition). Admittedly, in the said petition preferred under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the State counsel had given an undertaking that in case the petitioners are sought to be arrested, at least three days notice would be given to them. On a query being put to Mr. Saggar whether any notice pursuant to said order has been received by the petitioners, he has replied in the negative. In view of the fact that no notice has been received by the petitioners till now, there is nothing to suggest that there is apprehension of arrest of the petitioners. Needless to observe that registration of FIR does not necessarily mean that petitioners are likely to be arrested, particularly when no notice has been served on them till now. This apart, this court feels that a petition for pre-arrest bail should normally be preferred before the court of Sessions in the first instance despite concurrent jurisdiction vested in this court. Same was the Crl. Misc. No. M-34710 of 2010 3 view of the Kerala High Court in the judgment reported as Usman Vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police and another, 2003 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 814, where self imposed rule of restriction despite concurrent jurisdiction vested in the High Court was approved except in exceptional circumstances (para 37).
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - R Gupta - Full Document
1