Full Text
Translation output
r.
#
#46
% 05.04.2013
Present: Mr. Nishant Singh, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for the State.
S.I. Umesh Singh.
CrI.
M.A. No. 4123/13
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. Rev. P. No. 219/13
By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned ASJ, Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been regularly appearing during the course of trial of the case and it is only on one date i;e. 19.3.2013 that he could not appear because he was down with fever. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had also moved an exemption application but the same was dismissed by the learned ASJ without appreciating the fact that the exemption was sought by the petitioner on medical ground.
Heard.
Vide impugned order dated 19.3.2013, NBWs were directed against the petitioner and notice to surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C was
2013:DHC:8487
#
#46
% 05.04.2013
Present: Mr. Nishant Singh, Adv. for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Sharma, APP for the State.
S.I. Umesh Singh.
CrI.
M.A. No. 4123/13
Allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Crl. Rev. P. No. 219/13
By this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge the order dated 19.3.2013 passed by the learned ASJ, Delhi.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been regularly appearing during the course of trial of the case and it is only on one date i;e. 19.3.2013 that he could not appear because he was down with fever. Counsel also submits that the petitioner had also moved an exemption application but the same was dismissed by the learned ASJ without appreciating the fact that the exemption was sought by the petitioner on medical ground.
Heard.
Vide impugned order dated 19.3.2013, NBWs were directed against the petitioner and notice to surety under Section 446 Cr.P.C was
2013:DHC:8487
issued by the trial court for the next date i.e. 17.4.2013 since the petitionex could not present himself on the said date. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner had moved an application to seek his exemption. The exemption was sought by the petitioner on medical ground.
Considering the fact that the exemption was sought by the petitioner on medical ground and before the said date he had been regularly appearingJn
^ the matter, this court is of the view that the learned trial court ought to have granted the exemption. In any event of the matter the previous conduct of the accused should always be considered by the learned. trial court for refusing the grant of exemption.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order.,is set aside. The NBWs issued against the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
The petitioner is directed to present himself before the trial court on the next date.
The present petition standsdisposed of
DASTI.
A
•
April 05,2013 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg
2013:DHC:8487
Considering the fact that the exemption was sought by the petitioner on medical ground and before the said date he had been regularly appearingJn
^ the matter, this court is of the view that the learned trial court ought to have granted the exemption. In any event of the matter the previous conduct of the accused should always be considered by the learned. trial court for refusing the grant of exemption.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order.,is set aside. The NBWs issued against the petitioner shall stand cancelled.
The petitioner is directed to present himself before the trial court on the next date.
The present petition standsdisposed of
DASTI.
A
•
April 05,2013 KAILASH GAMBHIR, J mg
2013:DHC:8487
JUDGMENT