Dismissed

Tariq Naved Siddiqui v. Dilip Suryavanshi and Ors.

Bombay HC26 Mar 2009WP/700/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that interference was premature as only a show-cause notice had been issued. The Court corrected an error in the Magistrate's order, holding that a bond under Section 113 Cr.P.C. cannot be ordered for two years and must be limited to one year.

What did the court decide?

The Magistrate was directed to amend the order to reduce the bond period from two years to one year. The writ petition was disposed of.

Tariq Naved Siddiqui Vs Dilip… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶2

 VP H

¶3

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No. 700 OF 2009

¶5

Tariq Naved Siddiqui...Petitioner

¶6

Vs

¶7

Dilip Suryavanshi & Ors....Respondents

¶8

Mr. S. R. Chitnis and V. S. Kotwal, for the
petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. U. V. Kejariwal, APP for the Respondent-State

¶10

CORAM : BILAL NAZKI, AND
F. M. REIS, JJ.

¶11

DATED: MARCH 26, 2009.

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

1.Only a show-cause notice has been issued on

¶14

10th February 2009, calling to explain as to why he
should not be asked to give a bond with two sureties
of Rs.5,000/- for keeping peace. We do not find there
any ground at this stage to interfere, because only a
show-cause notice has been issued and sufficient time
has been given to the petitioner to explain the
petitioner. After the petitioner explains the

¶15

position, the respondent shall pass an order, taking
into consideration all the defences taken.

¶16

2.There appears to be an error in the order when
the Magistrate has issued a notice under Section 113
Cr.P.C. and asked the petitioner to show cause and in

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

case of failure of showing the cause, he will be asked
to give a bond for a period of two years to maintain
peace and good behaviour. The law permits only taking
of bond only for a period of one year and not for two
years. The Magistrate shall make necessary amendments
in the order. Writ petition is accordingly disposed
of.

Tariq Naved Siddiqui v. Dilip Suryavanshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tariq Naved Siddiqui v. Dilip Suryavanshi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sampat Dnyaneshwar Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Sampat Dnyaneshwar Kate Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ajay Gupta Vs the State of Maharashtra

Ruxana Tariq Pathan Vs Dilip Suryavanshi and Ors.

Vasudev Shankar Patil and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.