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
3 paragraphs · 213 wordsM.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)
Heard. It stands admitted at the bar that sixteen accused persons, who were arrested, were released on bail by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. The petitioner is one of the remaining three persons who was denied prearrest bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, on the ground that he had been declared as a proclaimed offender. The learned counsel for the petitioner has bemoaned that the residence of the village of the petitioner being Ladhewali was wrongly given out to be in Police Station Saddar, Hoshiarpur whereas it was a notorious fact that the said village was situated in district Jullundur, rather he states that this fact was pertinently mentioned in the service record of the petitioner. The grouse is that on the aforesaid basis, the petitioner has been declared as a proclaimed offender. If that is so, it is rather regrettable. In that event, there was no cause for the petitioner, is given this much relief that he shall surrender before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur on or before 30th July, 1983. The learned Magistrate shall, after hearing the Public Prosecutor the same day, consider the case of the petitioner for bail. The police in the interregnum shall not arrest the petitioner. Disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT accordingly.