Allowed

Moinuddin Khan Son of Alam Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Bombay HC18 Apr 2019WP/1980/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the order issuing a non-bailable warrant and refusing to cancel it against a petitioner accused. The court directed the accused to appear before the Magistrate and comply with bail conditions. The writ petition was allowed and disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Quashed and set aside the order of issuance of process dated 16th February, 2019, and the order refusing to cancel said warrant dated 28th February, 2019. Directed the accused to appear and comply wit

Moinuddin Khan Son of Alam Khan Vs the State of… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

912-wp-1980-2019.doc

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 1980 OF 2019

¶4

Moinuddin Khan son of Alam Khan

¶5

...Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Maharashtra (At the instance of the Senior Inspector of Police, Vakola Police Station)

¶8

...Respondent

¶9

-----

¶10

Ms.Anjali Awasthi for the Petitioner. Mr.A.R.Patil, APP for the Respondent-State.

¶11

CORAM : MRS. MRIDULA BHATKAR, J. DATE : 18 APRIL 2019

¶12

P.C.:

¶13

In this petition, the order dated 16^th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 71^st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, issuing a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner/accused in C.C. No. PW/0001309/2016 so also the order dated 28^th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 71^st Court, Bandra, Mumbai, refusing to cancel the said warrant are challenged.

¶14

The learned Counsel for the petitioner/accused submits that the chargesheet was filed in the month of July 2016. Thereafter, summons was issued. The stand taken in the Court by the petitioner/accused is that the

1/3

Trupti

912-wp-1980-2019.doc

summons was not served on him, and as the petitioner/accused is on anticipatory bail, the bailable warrant should have been issued. She further submits that the petitioner/accused is ready to appear before the learned Magistrate if he is protected.

¶19

The learned APP for the respondent-State submits that in the order dated 16^th February, 2019, the learned Magistrate has specifically mentioned that the summons was issued against the petitioner/accused and he has not complied with the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting the anticipatory bail. He further submits that the petitioner/accused did not appear before the learned Magistrate nearly for two years and, therefore, the learned Magistrate had no option, but to issue the non-bailable warrant to secure the presence of the petitioner/accused for framing of the charge.

¶20

The petitioner/accused is facing prosecution under sections 353, 332, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶21

Heard submissions. In view of above, I pass the following order:

¶22

ORDER

¶23

(i) The order of issuance of process dated 16^th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 71^st Court, Bandra, Mumbai and the order dated 28^th February, 2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Trupti

2/3

912-wp-1980-2019.doc

Magistrate, 71^st Court, Bandra, Mumbai are hereby quashed and set aside;

¶28

(ii) The petitioner/accused is directed to appear before the learned Magistrate on 20^th April, 2019 at 11.00 a.m. without fail;

¶29

(iii) The petitioner/accused shall comply with all the conditions imposed by the learned Magistrate while granting anticipatory bail;

¶30

(vi)The petitioner/accused shall thereafter appear before the learned Magistrate regularly unless the order of exemption is granted by the learned Magistrate;

¶31

(v) The learned Magistrate to proceed with the matter.

¶32

Writ Petition is allowed and accordingly disposed of.

¶33

(MRIDULA BHATKAR, J.)

¶34

3/3

¶35

Trupti

Moinuddin Khan Son of Alam Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Moinuddin Khan Son of Alam Khan v. the State of Maharashtra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Hiralal Kucheriya Vs Shyam Consruction Thr Banwari Shri Yadav Since Deceased Thr Legal Heirs Gauri Banwari Yadav and Anr.

M/S Jal Exports through Chirag Prakash Thakkar Vs Amit Ashok Kanungo and Anr.

M/S Jal Exports through Chirag Prakash Thakkar Vs Amit Ashok Kanungo and Anr.

Ulhas Harishchandra Dhargalkar Vs Padmakar Vasant Desai and Anr.

Ashabai Audumbar Tambe Vs the State of Maharashtra

Reshama Aashish Kumar Mishra Alias Reshma Umakant Tiwari and Anr. Vs Aashish Kumar Fatendranath Mishara and Ors.