The Supreme Court has remarked that it is impossible to understand why, when a person was appealed, a person that was not detained during the inquiry was transferred to the custody of the charges? In this regard, the bench consisting of judges Sanjay Kishan Kault and Hrishikesh Roy stated it would be necessary to put down some principles. In the present instance, the appellant said that he was not arrested but had taken part in the inquiry. He asked for a notice of bail, which the High Court had dismissed, when the indictment was brought. When the SLP brought an order for admission against the High Court, the bench asked the lawyer why he was not brought before the Court after the summons was given for knowledge.
The Court stated it should have attended and sought normal bail, and no argument for anticipatory bail should have been made at this point. The council replied that, although a person is not arrested during an inquiry but on a charged note, moreover, a person is sent to custody in such CBI cases and his appearance and request for bail would have resulted in him being sent to custody.? The counsel pointed out the system particularly in the State of Uttar Pradesh? "We cannot see first of all why the petitioner is required to be placed in jail in this circumstance. Whatever the situation, some principles will be suitable in this respect ", noted the bench in this instance when making a notice. Furthermore, a non-leasable warrant was issued and the court ordered that the accused not be arrested.
"Meanwhile, the petitioner will not be arrested and no leased warrants will be executed. On the following occasion, however, the petitioner will visit the court. There was a mistake."
Tags : #SUMMON #ARREST #SC