Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (0.83 seconds)
Md. Rustum Alam @ Rustam vs The State Of Jharkhand ... Opposite ... on 27 April, 2020 cites

Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others on 9 October, 2007

13. If liberty of a person is to be curtailed, the same has to be done strictly in accordance with the law so provided for. In this case, it is being curtailed by issuance of non-bailable warrant of arrest. Thus, the Court has to 7 record his satisfaction that the conditions laid down in the law for issuing warrant of arrest has been fulfilled and the procedure has been complied with. This satisfaction of the Court should be reflected in the order itself, to be gathered from the record, then only warrant of arrest can be issued. The Court has to prima-facie be satisfied that the person accused of committing a non- bailable offence is also evading his arrest. There has to be material before the Court to reach at the aforesaid conclusion. Without recording such subjective satisfaction to the effect that the accused is also evading his arrest, which should be on the basis of the materials placed before the Court, warrant of arrest cannot be issued. This satisfaction can be derived from the police paper/ case diary. Mere absence of the accused cannot give rise to a presumption that he is evading arrest, which in turn cannot be the sole ground to issue warrant of arrest.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 1931 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next