Surendra Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

Surendra Singh vs The State of Rajasthan

Disposition Application allowed Court Rajasthan Decided Feb 26, 1981

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/756006

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/756006
Court: Rajasthan High Court
Judge: N.M. Kasliwal, J.
Decided On: Feb 26, 1981
Case Number: S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 55 of 1980
Subject: Criminal
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

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

Criminal Procedure Code - Sections 70, 447 & 482--Magistrate cancelling bail bonds & issuing warrant of arrest on account of non-appearance of accused--Held, Magistrate is empowered to cancel warrant of arrest & demand fresh security.; The Magistrate took an erroneous view of law in holding that he had n...

Key legal issue: Criminal
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Surendra Singh

Respondent

The State of Rajasthan

Legal References

Reported In: 1981WLN(UC)40

Excerpt

.....by him. under sub-section (2) of section 70 of criminal procedure code, there is a provision that every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it, or until it is executed. apart from that, under section 447 the magistrate is empowered to demand a fresh security in accordance with the directions of the original order. in this view of the matter the order passed by the learned magistrate dated 23-2-81 is set aside.; application allowed - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....of the illness was also filed along-with the application. the learned magistrate, did not consider the matter of illness on merits and dismissed the application merely on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest when he had already passed an order forfeiting the bail bonds.4. in my view the magistrate took an erroneous view of law in holding that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest issued by him. under sub-section (2) of section 70 of criminal procedure code, there is a provision that every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the court which issued it, or until it is executed. apart from that, under section 447 the magistrate is empowered to demand a fresh security in accordance with the directions of the original order. in this view of the matter the order passed by the learned magistrate dated 23-2-81 is set aside and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of rs. 10.000/- with 2 sureties of rs. 5,000/- each by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned judicial magistrate, 1st class, no. 15, jaipur city, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall be cancelled.

Full Judgment

N.M. Kasliwal, J.

1. Heard leaned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Public Prosecutor. The petitioner was released on bail by the learned Sessions Judge, vide his order dated 31-10-80. lie was to appear on 7th February, 1981 in the Court of Munsiff and Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, Jaipur City.

2 The petitioner's contention is that he could not appear on 7th February, 1981 on account of his illness The learned Magistrate, confiscated the bail bonds and issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter moved an application on 23rd February, 1981 for cancellation of the warrant of arrest and prayed that fresh bail may be granted to him. The learned Magistrate by his order dated 23-2-81 dismissed the aforesaid application taking the view that when the bail bonds had been forfeited he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest.

3. This petition under Section 482 Cr. P.C. had been filed against the aforesaid order of the learned Magistrate, dated 23-2-81 and 7-2-81. The petitioner had filed an application for cancellation of the warrant of arrest on the ground that he was ill on 7-2-81 and was not in a position to attend the court. Medical Certificate in support of the illness was also filed along-with the application. The learned Magistrate, did not consider the matter of illness on merits and dismissed the application merely on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest when he had already passed an order forfeiting the bail bonds.

4. In my view the Magistrate took an erroneous view of law in holding that he had no jurisdiction to cancel the warrant of arrest issued by him. Under Sub-Section (2) of Section 70 of Criminal Procedure Code, there is a provision that every such warrant shall remain in force until it is cancelled by the Court which issued it, or until it is executed. Apart from that, under Section 447 the Magistrate is empowered to demand a fresh security in accordance with the directions of the original order. In this view of the matter the order passed by the learned Magistrate dated 23-2-81 is set aside and it is directed that on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10.000/- with 2 sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each by the petitioner to the satisfaction of the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, No. 15, Jaipur city, the warrant of arrest issued against the petitioner shall be cancelled.

Same Court & Year Rajasthan · 1981 Same Parties Surendra Singh vs The State of Rajasthan Same Subject Criminal Same Judge N.M. Kasliwal, J.

Criminal