Shivcharan Vs State

Vide order dated 13.02.2026 passed by this Court, the non-bailable warrant was issued to the appellants, namely, Shivcharan and Hazari Lal through Chief Judicial Magistrate/Superintendent of Police concerned with a direction to produce both the appellants before this Court.

¶11

In pursuance of the said order, both the appellants, namely, Shivcharan and Hazari Lal are present before this Court.

¶12

Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the appellants/applicants has placed bail application before this Court, which is taken on record.

¶13

During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellants apprised the Court that the present appeal was listed along with Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 1987, wherein a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had allowed both the appeals vide order dated 16.11.1987. However, due to mistake, the said order was neither reflected nor placed on record in Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 1987. It was further submitted that the appellants had already been acquitted by this Court in the year 1987 itself, but owing to the absence of the said order on record of Criminal Appeal No. 1822 of 1987, non-bailable warrants were issued against the appellants on account of non-presence of counsel.

¶14

Learned counsel for the appellants/applicants further submitted that in

¶15

CRLA No. 1822 of 1987

¶16

2

¶17

pursuance of the non-bailable warrant order, both the appellants were arrested and produced before this Court. It was further submitted that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellants deserve to be released on bail, particularly as they had already been acquitted by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.1987 passed in both the appeals.

¶18

We have perused the order dated 16.11.1987 passed in Criminal Appeal No. 1833 of 1987, the order-sheet of the present appeal, and the office report of the Registry of this Court. It is evident that the earlier counsel engaged in the appeal never apprised this Court of the aforesaid fact on any of the dates when the appeal was listed. The Registry also failed to place the relevant information before this Court that the appellants had already been acquitted by this Court.

¶19

Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants/applicants, the bail application is allowed . Accordingly, both the appellants, namely Shivcharan and Hazari Lal be released on bail forthwith from this Court.

¶20