9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (7) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... artment seeking further remand of the respondent for a further period of two weeks. This application was put up before Mr. Dinesh Dayal, Metropolitan Magistrate. An application for releasing the respondent on bail was then moved before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate allowed the application and directed the release of the petitioner on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount. The further admitted facts of the case are that an application for bail earlier moved on behalf of the respondent had been dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala House, New Delhi by his order dated April 19, 1988. Another application for bail moved by the respondent on April 18,198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order obtained by the respondent on his bail application on April 29, 1988 was thus vitiated and should accordingly be set aside. 3. As regards the first submission of Mr. Aggarwal that the learned Magistrate could not treat the application purporting to be one for obtaining further remand of the accused as an application for remand and that the only course available to him was to have directed the Duty Magistrate to go to the Central Jail, Tihar to consider the application for remand when the accused had not been produced, I am afraid that is not tenable. The Supreme Court in the case of Raj Narain v. Superintendent, Central Jail, New Delhi and Another, 1971 Cr. L.J. 244 held that there is nothing in the law which required the personal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was moved before the learned Magistrate on April 29,1988 to the department or its counsel, the bail application was moved on behalf of the accused before the learned Magistrate at the time when the learned Magistrate was dealing with the application for remand of the accused moved on behalf of the department itself. It was for the petitioner to be present before the court at that time either personally or through his counsel. I am of the view that in such a situation it was not incumbent on the learned Magistrate to have adjourned the bail application or to have issued another notice to the petitioner even for a later hour on the same date. Whenever an application for remand of an accused is moved on behalf of the prosecution, it has to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re moved by the petitioner through an advocate other than the one through whom the application in question was moved. It is further to be noted that the bail application was moved on behalf of the respondent on April 29, 1988, both for opposing the further remand of the respondent, and for seeking his release on bail. It was for the petitioner, Inspector of the Department, to see that due appearance was put in before the learned Magistrate at the hearing of the remand application either by him personally or through an authorised representative who should have been fully conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case including the fate of the earlier bail application having been moved at the time when the remand was under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
