Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.50 seconds)Section 83 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
State Of M.P vs Pradeep Sharma on 6 December, 2013
Learned APP, assisted by learned counsel for the
informant, has further submitted that considering the facts and
circumstances, the coordinate Bench has rejected the
anticipatory bail application of co-accused Pansujeet @ Mithun
Kumar @ Pansujeet Kumar @ Mithu, passed in Cr. Misc.
No.29323 of 2019 under order dated 17.08.2019. The coordinate
bench, relying on the decisions of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Pradeep Sharma, since reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), since reported in (2012) 8
SCC 730, dismissed the aforesaid anticipatory bail application
as the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was issued.
दर (2012) 3 Scc (Cri) Lavesh vs . State (Nct Of on 4 March, 2015
Learned APP, assisted by learned counsel for the
informant, has further submitted that considering the facts and
circumstances, the coordinate Bench has rejected the
anticipatory bail application of co-accused Pansujeet @ Mithun
Kumar @ Pansujeet Kumar @ Mithu, passed in Cr. Misc.
No.29323 of 2019 under order dated 17.08.2019. The coordinate
bench, relying on the decisions of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs.
Pradeep Sharma, since reported in (2014) 2 SCC 171 and
Lavesh Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), since reported in (2012) 8
SCC 730, dismissed the aforesaid anticipatory bail application
as the process under Section 82 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure was issued.
Section 27 in The Arms Act, 1959 [Entire Act]
Lavesh vs State (Nct Of Delhi) on 31 August, 2012
It is clear from the above decision that if
anyone is declared as an
absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of
section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to
the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus the High
Court has committed an error in granting
anticipatory bail to respondent No.2-
accused ignoring the proceedings under
Section 82-83 of Cr.P.C."
Shankar Kumar @ Prem Shankar Prasad @ ... vs State Of Bihar & Anr on 28 October, 2010
This is not under consideration before this Bench to
scrutinize the legality or illegality of issuance of process under
Sections 82 or 83 Cr.P.C. The issue is whether anticipatory bail
petition is maintainable or not in a case where the process under
Sections 82 and 83 has been issued. As per the ratio laid down
in Prem Shankar Prasad (supra) if the process under Section 82
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18278 of 2019(7) dt.02-11-2021
7/7
Cr.P.C. has been issued, the anticipatory bail is not maintainable.
Anil Kumar Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 July, 2018
"The judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
which have been taken note of by this Court
in the case of Kamakhya Narayan Singh
(supra) have been rendered in a case where
Patna High Court CR. MISC.
Rajan Choudhary @ Rajnath Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 29 August, 2018
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.18278 of 2019(7) dt.02-11-2021
5/7
In reply, learned counsel(s) for the petitioners have
submitted that process under Section 82 was issued in a very
hasty manner. The FIR was lodged on 5 th December, 2018 and
only after five days, non-bailable warrant was issued on 10 th
December, 2018 and the process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was
issued on 17.12.2018, without giving any cogent reason. The
reason given by the learned court below for issuance of process
under Section 82 Cr.P.C. was that the case is of very serious
nature. Learned counsel has also drew my attention towards
two decisions of the coordinate bench. The first has been
rendered in Cr. Misc. 37864 of 2017 under judgment dated
16.05.2018 (Rajan Choudhary @ Rajnath Choudhary vs. The
State of Bihar), whereas the second has rendered in Cr.Misc.No.
8711 of 2019 under order dated 16.07.2019 (Anil Kumar Singh
Vs. The State of Bihar. In the first decision in Cr. Misc.
37864/2017, it was held that the process only under Section 82
of the Cr.P.C. was issued and not under Section 83 of the Cr.P.C.
The coordinate Bench at page six of the said order, quoting a
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court, has observed as follows:
1