Allowed

Satish Goenka v. Ramavtar Agrawal

Chhattisgarh HC3 Nov 2011CRMP/420/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the single judge allowed exemption from personal appearance for the petitioner who had undergone a renal transplant, quashing the bail waist and directing appearance on a specified date shortly thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Application for exemption from personal appearance allowed; body warrant issued directing appearance on 13th December 2011; bail warrant quashed.

	IT???'W9? (-lp'i':pS!	;
		-BFfeS1?Si^ l!f
TR^Toil TtqiST^I	wrarTtita sff^;	tcm feft SS 3»^a3^'v
	SB : Hon'bleShri Manindj- 3.11.2011 ShriAnkitSinghal, c4 ShriS.K. Tiwari, couij	aMohan Shrivastava.J. unselforfhe petitioner. iselforfherespondent.
	Wifh the consent oj parties, thematterisheari^	leamed counsel appearing for the finally.
	be^ This petition has order dated 23.5.2011 pa^ Raigarhonthe coniplaint d application under Section personalappearance onths j	Leamed counsel forl petitioner is suffering fr<
	undergone kidneytransplaj had moved an applicatio appearanceandintheligh^ dishonour of cheque and heinous ofience, fheleame liberalattitude inconsiderijt On the other hand, silhmits that thp. grnnni 'minrt	itation ti ^ is pt i. Onthis ground, the petitioner for exemption from hls personal offhe factthatfhecaseonly involves not a case of coinmission of any Coiirtbelowoughttohave adopted a

IT???'W9? (-lp'i':pS!

;

-BFfeS1?Si^ l!f

TR^Toil
TtqiST^I

wrarTtita sff^;

tcm feft
SS 3»^a3^'v

SB : Hon'bleShri Manindj-
3.11.2011
ShriAnkitSinghal, c4
ShriS.K. Tiwari, couij

aMohan Shrivastava.J.
unselforfhe petitioner.
iselforfherespondent.

Wifh the consent oj
parties, thematterisheari^

leamed counsel appearing for the
finally.

be^
This petition has
order dated 23.5.2011 pa^
Raigarhonthe coniplaint d
application under Section
personalappearance onths
j

Leamed counsel forl
petitioner is suffering
fr<

undergone kidneytransplaj
had moved an applicatio
appearanceandintheligh^
dishonour of cheque and
heinous ofience, fheleame
liberalattitude inconsiderijt
On the other hand,
silhmits
that
thp.
grnnni
'minrt

itation
ti

^
is
pt
i. Onthis ground, the petitioner
for exemption from hls personal
offhe factthatfhecaseonly involves
not a case of coinmission of any
Coiirtbelowoughttohave adopted a

3ii^?rsff 1%:*N? Tfqi3^1 B^lte	TTOTW^fei3^1 z	'^r<rf?T<ft;7^wsi <-i J-K'i<^ iJ^STC ^sffOTSIT^i
	exemption was diilly con^ groiinds were not found ^ fherefore, fheapplicationt	idered by leamed Magistrate and tfae ufiicient to allow fhe appllcation and, jas beenrightlyrejected.
	From the order impi had sought exemption st failure problem and had without proper reservatloi certain discharge certificat in hospital and had undi 29.5.2009. The leamed Co holding fhat the operatioi show fhat the petitioner years before and fhere is the petitioner is suffering	^gned, it is revealed that the petitioner ^ttng tihat he is si.ifiering Irom renal ^reat difiiculty in undertakmg journey ji. The petitioner had also submitted ^s showtngthathe remained admitted ^rgone renal transplant operation on jurt below has rejected the application, ^ ]had suffered the problems almost 2 and fhe ailment related dociunents 40 material to sho-w that atthat stage, ^oia any aihnentor any ofher medical
	The submission of th exemption that he is a problems ,has not been ( required to come from Pa atRaigarh. Ithas to be se offence doesnotrelateto a Present is a case of complications.	je ^isj tjia ^n (iy petltioner ^{and the basis for seeking} 1patient,suffering from certain renal jisputed by anyone. The petitioner is to attend (he criimnal proceedings fhat fhe allegation ofcommission of heinous case oragraveaccusation. jlishonour of cheque. Taking uito

3ii^?rsff 1%:*N?
Tfqi3^1 B^lte

TTOTW^fei3^1
z

'^r<rf?T<ft;7^wsi <-i J-K'i<^ iJ^STC
^sffOTSIT^i

exemption was diilly con^
groiinds were not found ^
fherefore, fheapplicationt

idered by leamed Magistrate and tfae
ufiicient to allow fhe appllcation and,
jas beenrightlyrejected.

From the order impi
had sought exemption st
failure problem and had
without proper reservatloi
certain discharge certificat
in hospital and had undi
29.5.2009. The leamed Co
holding fhat the operatioi
show fhat the petitioner
years before and fhere is
the petitioner is suffering

^gned, it is revealed that the petitioner
^ttng tihat he is si.ifiering Irom renal
^reat difiiculty in undertakmg journey
ji. The petitioner had also submitted
^s showtngthathe remained admitted
^rgone renal transplant operation on
jurt below has rejected the application,
^
]had suffered the problems almost 2
and fhe ailment related dociunents
40 material to sho-w that atthat stage,
^oia any aihnentor any ofher medical

The submission of th
exemption that he is a
problems ,has not been (
required to come from Pa
atRaigarh. Ithas to be se
offence doesnotrelateto a
Present
is
a
case
of
complications.

je
^isj
tjia
^n
(iy
petltioner ^{and the basis for seeking}
1patient,suffering from certain renal
jisputed by anyone. The petitioner is
to attend (he criimnal proceedings
fhat fhe allegation ofcommission of
heinous case oragraveaccusation.
jlishonour
of
cheque.
Taking
uito

	ira^? (Ti?'?3^^	T)
sn^t^ilfnNr 7rarCT^I *"isti		•FRnw^tesntw •i-
	consideration fhe totality o) this Court, the Court belj attitude while considering from personal appearance, counsel. Under (hese thematter. circut	sw the circumstances, in the opinion of ought to have adopted a liberal Ipetitioner's application for exemption aUowir^ him to appear fhough his >, I am incllned to interferein astances,
	Accordingly, fhe or^ petitioner's application f appearance and issuing b^ the petitioner shaU appearj 13th December, 2011 and exemptedfrouihis appearaij	ler of the Court below rejecttng pr exemption from his personal ilable warrant is quashed. However, ice. before the Court below on or before shatl continue to appear there iinless
	It is made clear that fhe Court below as direct4 libeity to take coercive petltioner.	d fffhe petitioner fails to appear before above, fhe Coiirt below will be at ^teps to compel production of the
Praveen	The petition is accorc^ above.	ingly anowed to the extent indicated Sd/- ManindraMohan Shrivastava Judge

ira^? (Ti?'?3^^

sn^t^ilfnNr
7rarCT^I *"isti

•FRnw^tesntw
•i-

consideration fhe totality o)
this Court, the Court belj
attitude while considering
from personal appearance,
counsel. Under (hese
thematter.

circut

sw
the circumstances, in the opinion of
ought to have adopted a liberal
Ipetitioner's application for exemption
aUowir^ him to appear fhough his
>, I am incllned to interferein
astances,

Accordingly,
fhe
or^
petitioner's
application
f
appearance and issuing b^
the petitioner shaU appearj
13th December, 2011 and
exemptedfrouihis appearaij

ler
of the
Court
below
rejecttng
pr
exemption
from
his
personal
ilable warrant is quashed. However,
ice.
before the Court below on or before
shatl continue to appear there iinless

It is made clear that
fhe Court below as direct4
libeity to take coercive
petltioner.

d
fffhe petitioner fails to appear before
above, fhe Coiirt below will be at
^teps to compel production of the

Praveen

The petition is accorc^
above.

ingly anowed to the extent indicated
Sd/-
ManindraMohan Shrivastava
Judge

Satish Goenka v. Ramavtar Agrawal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Goenka v. Ramavtar Agrawal

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

Bharti Rathore and Others Vs S.L. Adile

Jaiprakash Shukla Vs Shivratan and Ors.

Onkar Singh Sahu Vs D.R. Bhagat and Anr.

Rakesh Pandey and Others Vs State of M.P. Now C.G. and Others

Amit Kumar Minj Vs Dr. Kamal Preet Singh

I.P. Gupta Vs Vikas Sheel and Anr.