The court dismissed a memo appeal to quash an order. However, granting 15 days to appellants to produce accused or deposit amount, the recovery warrant against them was stayed.
Appellants granted 15 days to produce accused or deposit amount; recovery warrant stayed during this period.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 87
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1103 of 2022
Appellant :- Hoshiar Singh And 2 Others Respondent :- State of U.P. Counsel for Appellant :- Kiran Tiwari,Mahesh Chandra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Dinesh Kumar Singh,J.
Delay Condonation Application
Memo
[D.K.SINGH, J.]
Order Date :- 2.1.2023 MVS/-
Digitally signed by MANOJ VIKRAM SINGH CHAUHAN Date: 2023.01.02 16:34:19 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal raised under the memo is capable of being decided, and if so, what is the decision?
Whether bail bonds executed by the appellants should be enforced given the failure to produce accused or deposit amount?
Whether execution of recovery warrant against sureties should be stayed?
Hoshiar Singh And 2 Others
State of U.P.
Dinesh Kumar Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
