Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 38 views

    Chandmal at Chandanmal VS State of Madhya Pradesh

    Uploaded by

    M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN
    The Supreme Court of India allowed appeals challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants against two appellants in their 70s for offenses with a maximum punishment of 7 years. The Court noted that virtual hearings are an acceptable alternative given the appellants' ages and that lower courts should have accommodated virtual appearances instead of issuing warrants. The impugned orders issuing the non-bailable warrants were set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Chandmal at Chandanmal VS State of Madhya Pradesh

    Uploaded by

    M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN
    38 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court of India allowed appeals challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants against two appellants in their 70s for offenses with a maximum punishment of 7 years. The Court noted that virtual hearings are an acceptable alternative given the appellants' ages and that lower courts should have accommodated virtual appearances instead of issuing warrants. The impugned orders issuing the non-bailable warrants were set aside.

    Original Title

    Chandmal_@_Chandanmal_VS_State_of_Madhya_Pradesh

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court of India allowed appeals challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants against two appellants in their 70s for offenses with a maximum punishment of 7 years. The Court noted that virtual hearings are an acceptable alternative given the appellants' ages and that lower courts should have accommodated virtual appearances instead of issuing warrants. The impugned orders issuing the non-bailable warrants were set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    38 views2 pages

    Chandmal at Chandanmal VS State of Madhya Pradesh

    Uploaded by

    M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN
    The Supreme Court of India allowed appeals challenging the issuance of non-bailable warrants against two appellants in their 70s for offenses with a maximum punishment of 7 years. The Court noted that virtual hearings are an acceptable alternative given the appellants' ages and that lower courts should have accommodated virtual appearances instead of issuing warrants. The impugned orders issuing the non-bailable warrants were set aside.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Page 1 of 2

    This Product is Licensed to M. NAGA SHYAM KIRAN (M.N.S.K.), Advocate, Anantapuramu


    Chandmal @ Chandanmal VS State of Madhya Pradesh

    2023 0 Supreme(SC) 109

    SUPREME COURT OF INDIA


    SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
    Chandmal @ Chandanmal - Appellant
    Versus
    The State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. - Respondents
    Criminal Appeal No. 359 of 2023 [@ SLP [Crl.] No. 1912 of 2022] With Criminal Appeal
    No. 360 of 2023 [@ SLP(Crl) No. 3112 of 2022]
    Decided On : 07-02-2023

    Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 70 – Issuance of non-bailable warrants –


    Appellants are aged persons in their 70s and alleged offences have a maximum
    punishment up to seven years, despite they have been called upon to surrender in
    Court concerned – Court would normally expect that even in District Courts, in
    Covid period, arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing – It is not as if
    virtual method of appearing before Court has to be abandoned as this is an
    alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts –
    Appellants can always connect virtually for proceedings looking to their age –
    Impugned orders set aside. (Paras 6 to 9)

    Facts of the case:

    Point in issue is whether on the charge-sheet having been filed and during that period
    the appellants having cooperated but not having appeared before the Court
    personally but through a counsel, the action of the trial Court to issue non-bailable
    warrants is something which can be sustained.

    Findings of Court:

    We are not also be able to appreciate the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by
    the High Court calling upon the appellants, despite recognizing the fact that they are
    aged persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to
    seven years, they have been called upon to surrender in the Court concerned.

    Result : Appeals allowed.

    Cases referred:

    Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2022) 1 SCC 676 – Referred [Para 3]
    Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr., (2021) 10 SCC 773 –
    Referred [Para 5]

    IMPORTANT POINT
    Issuance of non-bailable warrants – Virtual method of appearing before Court is an
    alternative method of appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts.
    Page 2 of 2

    Advocates Appeared :
    For the Petitioner : Mr. Divyakant Lahoti, AOR, Ms. Vindhya Mehra, Adv., Mr. Parikshit
    Ahuja, Adv., Ms. Praveena Bisht, Adv., Ms. Madhur Jhavar, Adv., Mr. Kartik Lahoti,
    Adv., Ms. Garima Verma, Adv., Mr. Rahul Maheshwari, Adv.
    For the Respondent : Mr. Yashraj Singh Bundela, Adv., Mr. Pashupathi Nath Razdan,
    AOR, Mr. Ankit Mishra, Adv., Ms. Ayushi Mittal, Adv.

    ORDER :

    1. Leave granted.

    2. The issue before us is whether on the charge-sheet having been filed and during that
    period the appellants having cooperated but not having appeared before the Court
    personally but through a counsel, the action of the trial Court to issue non-bailable
    warrants is something which can be sustained.

    3. Learned counsel for the appellants urged on 09.02.2022 as he urges today that the bail
    ought to have been granted as a matter of course in view of the judgment of this Court in
    Siddharth v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. – (2022) 1 SCC 676. We issued notice and
    granted interim protection.

    4. Learned counsel for the State does not dispute that no further investigation is required in
    this matter.

    5. We may note that even the mandate subsequently incorporated in Satender Kumar Antil
    v. Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr. – (2021) 10 SCC 773 has been violated. We fail
    to understand why despite these judgments having been circulated, some of the trial Courts
    are conducting and passing the orders in the teeth of these judgments. It is a matter of
    concern that these cases thus, keep on coming up to the apex Court unnecessarily.

    6. We are not also be able to appreciate the impugned order dated 24.01.2022 passed by
    the High Court calling upon the appellants, despite recognizing the fact that they are aged
    persons in their 70s and the alleged offences has a maximum punishment up to seven
    years, they have been called upon to surrender in the Court concerned.

    7. We would normally expect that even in the District Courts, in the Covid period,
    arrangements would have been made for virtual hearing. It is not as if the virtual method
    of appearing before the Court has to be abandoned as this is an alternative method of
    appearance now which is to be followed by different Courts.

    8. Thus, the appellants can always connect virtually for the proceedings looking to their
    age.

    9. The impugned orders are set aside.

    10. The appeals accordingly stand allowed leaving parties to bear their own costs.

    You might also like