AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 201 wordsHeard learned counsel for the parties.
Leave granted.
The appellants are aggrieved by the order cancelling their bail and rejecting the request for recall of non-bailable warrants.
Suffice to observe that in a conviction under Section 304 Part-II, IPC appellants were granted bail on 15.10.2007 by the High Court during the pendency of the appeal. The appeal seems to have come up for hearing on 08.02.2019 when the appellants are stated to have defaulted on five consecutive dates leading to cancellation of the bail and issuance of non-bailable warrants.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the omission was inadvertent as appropriate information was not conveyed. He gives an undertaking that the appellants shall be duly represented on each and every date in the appeal in the High Court.
In that view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, that the appeal has remained pending in the High Court from 2007 to 2019, the undertaking to be properly represented on each subsequent date in the appeal and the appellants had been granted bail once, we consider it proper to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal .
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.