- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Shaik Yousuf v. State Of Andhra Pradesh Through P. S. Asifnagar
Factual and Procedural Background
The petitioner is accused in C.C. No. 100 of 1997 pending before the IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. For his default in appearing, on 4-7-2001 a non-bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against him. The petitioner filed an application under section 70(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure stating that he was undergoing medical treatment with Dr. Mohd. Mohiuddin for renal colic with urinary tract infection. The court below dismissed that application on the ground that it felt it necessary to give the accused a personal hearing. The revisional court set aside the impugned order and directed the petitioner to appear before the court below on the next adjournment date. The criminal revision was allowed.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the application under section 70(2) CrPC, supported by the petitioner's medical treatment explanation, warranted recall of the non-bailable warrant.
- Whether the court's insistence on giving a personal hearing justified dismissal of the section 70(2) application.
- Whether, if the petitioner is brought by execution of the warrant, he can nevertheless be enlarged on bail without causing undue delay to the main case.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner applied under section 70(2) CrPC explaining he was undergoing medical treatment (renal colic with urinary tract infection) with Dr. Mohd. Mohiuddin, implying his absence was not wilful.
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of any opposing party's legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court noted the petitioner's explanation of medical treatment and observed that the court below dismissed the section 70(2) application because it considered a personal hearing necessary. The revisional court observed it was not clear whether that personal hearing requirement related to the present application or to the main case. The court stated that ordinarily a warrant should be recalled if the court is convinced the accused's earlier absence was not wilful, and that even if the accused is brought by execution of a warrant he can be enlarged on bail. The court treated these remedies as simple measures that should not delay the disposal of the main case. Relying on these principles, the court concluded the impugned order should be set aside.
Holding and Implications
CRIMINAL REVISION ALLOWED
Direct effect: The impugned order dismissing the petitioner's section 70(2) application is set aside and the petitioner is directed to appear before the court below on the next adjournment date when the case is posted. No broader precedent or novel legal principle is stated in the opinion; the decision effects the above relief between the parties.
(1) The petitioner is a. 5. In c. C. No. 100 of 1997, which is pending on the file of the ix metropolitan magistrate, hyderabad. For his default in appearing before that court, on 4 - 7 - 2001 a non - bailable warrant was ordered to be issued against him.
(2) The petitioner filed an application under section 70 (2) of the code of criminal procedure explaining, inter alia, that he was undergoing medical treatment with dr. Mohd. Mohiuddin for renal colic with urinary tract infection. The court below dismissed his application on the premise that it felt necessary to give a personal hearing to the accused. It is not known whether it is in respect of the present application or it is for the purpose of examining the accused in the main case. In ordinary course, a warrant should have been recalled if the court is convinced that his absence on earlier occasion was not wilful. Even otherwise, if for any reason the petitioner is brought by executing a warrant issued against him, still he can be enlarged on bail. These things are simple and they shall not delay the disposal of the main case.
(3) For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the petitioner herein is directed to appear before the court below on the next adjournment date when the case stands posted.
(4) In the result, the criminal revision case is allowed accordingly.
Alert