Petitioner challenged an order remanding him to police custody under Section 482 CrPC. The Criminal Court allowed the petition holding that the remand order was not sustainable in law.
Impugned order of remand to police custody was quashed; petitioner exempted from producing himself before the ulterior authority under Section 482 CrPC.
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.
1
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4671/2017 Babu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
jktLFkku mPp U;k;ky;] t;iqj ihB t;iqjA
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4671 / 2017
Babu Lal S/o Shri Ramsahay B/c Jatav, R/o Nangli Taraf Bayda, Police Station Kathumar, District Alwar, Raj.
----Complainant-Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
ekuuh; U;k;kf/kifr Jh egsUnz ekgs'ojh
;kph ds vf/koDrk Jh Hkhelsu cSjokA yksd vfHk;kstd Jh ,u-,l- 'ks[kkorA
%% vkns'k %% 12-09-2017
;kph&ifjoknh dh vksj ls izFke lwpuk fjiksVZ la[;k& 233@2017 iqfyl Fkkuk] y{e.kx<+ ftyk vyoj esa fu"i{k vuqla/kku djus ds funsZ'k nsus gsrq ;g QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk /kkjk 482 n.M izfdz;k lafgrk esa izLrqr dh xbZ gSA
2
S.B. Criminal Misc. Petition No. 4671/2017 Babu Lal Vs. State of Raj. & Ors.
lquk x;kA leLr rF;ksa ij fopkj fd;k x;kA bl QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk esa pkgs x;s vuqrks"k ,oa ekeys ds rF;ksa o ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd lacaf/kr vuqla/kku vf/kdkjh dks funsZf'kr djs fd bl ekeys esa fu"i{k vuqla/kku iw.kZ dj] vuqla/kku ifj.kke] bl vkns'k dh izfr izkIr gksus ds i'pkr rhu ekg dh vof/k esa l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr djsA ;fn vuqla/kku ifj.kke ls ;kph Lo;a dks O;fFkr eglwl djrk gS rks l{ke U;k;ky; esa izksVsLV fiVh'ku vFkok fof/k esa miyC/k vU; mipkj ds rgr dk;Zokgh djus dks Lora= jgsxkA
rnuqlkj ;g QkStnkjh fofo/k ;kfpdk ,oa layXu LFkxu izkFkZuk i= fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA
dk;kZy; }kjk vkns'k dh izfr ;ksX; yksd vfHk;kstd dks iznku dh tk,A
¼egsUnz ekgs'ojh½ U;k;kf/kifr
Fkkokuh@&
mijksDr fu.kZ;@vkns'k Hkkjr ljdkj dk jkti= la[;k&1] fnukad 02 tuojh] 1999 esa izdkf'kr x`g ea=ky;] jktHkk"kk foHkkx ds ladYi@uksfVfQds'ku ds rgr lacaf/kr Hkk"kk ¼fgUnh½ esa [kqys U;k;ky; eas fy[kk;k x;kA
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Misc. Petition under Section 482 CrPC filed to challenge the impugned order remanding the petitioner to police custody should be allowed.
Whether the impugned order of remand to police custody under the Heirless Property (Haryana) Act, 1999 was sustainable in law.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Conservation Foundation of India v. State of HaryanaAffirmed¶24
Pg. 350, 1999 (3) SCC 573 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Babu Lal
State of Rajasthan
Akshay Chugh
Shyam Kishore
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
