Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Hasin-ud-dIn Vs. Emperor

Hasin-ud-din vs Emperor

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 31, 1912
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473154

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Criminal Procedure Code (Act V of 1898), Section 118 - Security for good behaviour. - - 1. The applicant, Hasin-ud-din, by an order of the Magistrate, dated the 11th of May 1912, was ordered to give security for his good behaviour for three years in his own bond for Rs. This is no valid ground whatsoever for rejec...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Hasin-ud-din

Respondent

Emperor

Legal References

Reported In
17Ind.Cas.575

Excerpt

criminal procedure code (act v of 1898), section 118 - security for good behaviour. - - 1. the applicant, hasin-ud-din, by an order of the magistrate, dated the 11th of may 1912, was ordered to give security for his good behaviour for three years in his own bond for rs. this is no valid ground whatsoever for rejecting the security which is good in other respects.tudball, j.1. the applicant, hasin-ud-din, by an order of the magistrate, dated the 11th of may 1912, was ordered to give security for his good behaviour for three years in his own bond for rs. 500 and two sureties for rs. 500 each. he produced two sureties, karim bakhsh and one other. the magistrate has rejected this security for very peculiar reasons. his order runs as follows: 'the applicant, karim bakhsh, says he will keep hasin-ud-din in his village but the other surety lives ten miles away at least from that village, and he is not present. unless both the sureties live within a radius of five miles, i cannot allow this security.' the order is by no means clear as to the centre from which the radius is to be drawn, whether that centre is to be the abode of the accused or of the sureties. apparently there is no other defect in this security except that mentioned by the magistrate, namely, that the sureties do not live within five miles of each other or of hasin-ud-din. this is no valid ground whatsoever for rejecting the security which is good in other respects. i, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order of the magistrate and direct that the security offered by the two sureties produced be accepted together with the bond of hasin-ud-din and that he be forthwith released directly the bonds are filed.

Full Judgment

Tudball, J.

1. The applicant, Hasin-ud-din, by an order of the Magistrate, dated the 11th of May 1912, was ordered to give security for his good behaviour for three years in his own bond for Rs. 500 and two sureties for Rs. 500 each. He produced two sureties, Karim Bakhsh and one other. The Magistrate has rejected this security for very peculiar reasons. His order runs as follows: 'The applicant, Karim Bakhsh, says he will keep Hasin-ud-din in his village but the other surety lives ten miles away at least from that village, and he is not present. Unless both the sureties live within a radius of five miles, I cannot allow this security.' The order is by no means clear as to the centre from which the radius is to be drawn, whether that centre is to be the abode of the accused or of the sureties. Apparently there is no other defect in this security except that mentioned by the Magistrate, namely, that the sureties do not live within five miles of each other or of Hasin-ud-din. This is no valid ground whatsoever for rejecting the security which is good in other respects. I, therefore, allow this application, set aside the order of the Magistrate and direct that the security offered by the two sureties produced be accepted together with the bond of Hasin-ud-din and that he be forthwith released directly the bonds are filed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial