The Single Judge held that under Section 362 CrPC, no application under Section 389 of CrPC was maintainable as the order had already been passed. Accordingly, the modification petition was dismissed.
Modication prayer was dismissed and the petition was dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Criminal Miscellaneous No.47232 of 2018
In
Criminal Miscellaneous No.6694 of 2018
====================================================== Navin Kumar, S/o Chandeshwar Rai, R/o Village- Chhatar Chapra, P.S.Dighwara, District- Saran.
... ... Petitioner/s Versus The State of Bihar. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gajendra Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Smt. Rita Verma ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER
the petitioner and Smt. Rita Verma, learned Addl. Public Prosecutor.
The present petition has been filed with a prayer to modify order dated 12-02-2018 passed in Cr. Misc No. 6694 of 2018 to the extent of extending the period of surrender.
Since order has already been passed and considering
the provision contained in Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, there is no reason to entertain the present petition.
The modification petition stands dismissed.
(Rakesh Kumar, J.)
anay
U T
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to modify a decree/arrest refusing to modify a previously passed order under CrPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Navin Kumar
The State of Bihar
Rakesh Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
