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
4 paragraphs · 238 wordsA.K. Mathur, J
This petition u/s 482, Cr PC is directed against the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mavali dated 29-11-1989 whereby the learned Magistrate has refused exemption from personal appearance of the accused an 29-11-1989, despite the fact that an application was moved by the counsel for the accused along with the telegram showing that as there was a curfew at Jaipur, therefore, the accused could not appear on 29-11-1989. But the learned Magistrate declined to exempt the personal appearnnce of the accused and forfeited the bail bonds and initiated the proceedings u/s 446, Cr.PC. Hence, the present petition.
I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Public Prosecutor.
In the present case the learned Magistrate has declined to grant exemption from personal appearance of the accused when an application along with the telegram was moved by the counsel for the accused that curfew was clamped from 27-11-1989 to 29-11-1989 at Jaipur. This was a genuine cause which prevented the petitioner from appearing before the learned Magistrate on 29-1 1-1989. The learned Magistrate should have taken a pragmatic approach rather than straight way cancelling the bail bonds. The order of the learned Magistrate cannot be sustained. Hence, the petition u/s 182 Cr.PC is allowed and the order dated 29-11-1989 passed by the learned Magistrate is quashed. The accused shall appear before the learned Magistrate on 23-4-1990.