Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 28 (0.50 seconds)Section 83 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
G. Sagar Suri vs State And Anr. on 22 August, 2003
11. Similar observations are made in the case of Rohit Kumar
(Supra) and G.Sagarsuri (supra) wherein it is mentioned that it is
mandatory for the Court to record reasons in writing before issuing the
warrants or the process under Section 82/83 Cr. P.C.
In the Case G.Sagarsuri (Supra) the Court has observed:
"13.
Smt. Deeksha Puri vs State Of Haryana on 16 October, 2012
5. On the other hand Ld. APP for State has argued that order
is rightly passed. It is stated that accused is evading the process of the
Court which is clear from the fact that even after getting interim bail he
did not appear for investigation before the IO despite service of notice at
his Kerala address. It is stated that on account of his nonappearance,
his anticipatory bail application was even dismissed by the Session
Court. It is stated that though it is correct that the reasons are not
reflected in the order but the conduct of the revisionist warranted the
passing of the order which is an appropriate order. Ld. APP for State
has cited the case law Deeksha Puri vs. State of Haryana, 2012 SCC
OnLine P &H 20122: (2013 )1 RCR (Crl)159 (2).
Nazir Ahmad vs Emperor (No. 2) on 16 June, 1936
Other methods of performance
are necessarily forbidden" (Nazir Ahmed v. King Emperor,
AIR 1936 PC 253)."