Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The well settled proposition of law is that simple denial of the whereabouts of an offender by his family members does not amount to harbouring such family member.”
Supreme Court answered in affirmative that if the status under Section 82 CrPC is nullified i.e., the person subjected to such a proclamation, by virtue of subsequent developments is no longer required to be presented before a Court of law. Then, the prosecution still proceeds against such a person for having not appeared before a Court during the time that the process was in effect.
Supreme Court found the appellant’s contention as unsustainable because they did not appear before the Court on issuance of bailable warrants but moved applications for bail.
There was a declaration of the accused as a proclaimed offender, and such declaration was subsisting on the date of the impugned order, thus, the Supreme Court disagreed with the High Court that the accused was entitled to ‘reform and course correct’.
Allahabad High Court: In an anticipatory bail application filed by the applicants for offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 386, 120-B,
Punjab and Haryana High Court: While dealing with an issue on joint proceedings, Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J., held that a proceeding where
Supreme Court: In a case where the Patna High Court had granted anticipatory bail to an absconder, the bench of MR Shah*
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Anoop Chitkara J., considering the peculiar facts of the present case, allows anticipatory bail to a proclaimed offender,
Delhi High Court: The Court dealt with an important question of law in criminal proceedings in a case, where the process under
Supreme Court: In the petition preferred under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the hapless and helpless widow of Rajdev