TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court emphasizes challenging remand order at appropriate court, dismisses release applications. Respondent to file counter-affidavit to determine service.</h1> <h3>BASANT BANSAL, PANKAJ BANSAL Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.</h3> The court dismissed the applications seeking release from illegal detention, emphasizing that challenging the remand order at the appropriate court is the ... Seeking release of petitioner from illegal detention - Territorial Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- Once the order of remand has been passed by the competent court at Panchkula, the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to approach the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh challenging the order of remand. Any order passed by this court once an order of remand has been passed by Panchkula Court would be improper. As regards informing this court on 09.06.2023 with regard to pendency of the FIR 0006/2023 dated 17.04.2023 and second ECIR being 17/2023 is concerned, the said submission would be relevant while challenging the order of remand dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Panchkula court. Application dismissed. Issues:The judgment involves issues related to illegal detention, failure to disclose relevant information u/s 11, 13, 7, and 8 of PC Act, anticipatory bail, and jurisdiction of the court.Illegal Detention:The applications sought the release of the petitioners from illegal detention by respondents no. 2 and 3. The FIR 0006/2023 u/s 11, 13, 7, and 8 of PC Act along with 120B IPC was registered on 17.04.2023. The petitioners' counsels argued that the respondents failed to disclose the FIR dated 17.04.2023 during the anticipatory bail hearing, which was crucial information for the court. They also contended that the petitioners were not served with summons related to the second ECIR, which the respondents claimed. The counsels relied on the judgment of 'Uday Chand & Ors. and Vs. Sheikh Mohd. Abdullah' [1983] 2 SCC 417 to support their arguments.Court's Jurisdiction and Remand Order:The ASG argued that the court's order on 09.06.2023 was specific to ECIR No. GNZO/10/2021, not the second ECIR 17/2023. He mentioned that a competent court in Panchkula had already issued a remand order for the petitioners. The ASG emphasized that entertaining the application for interim directions would amount to the court overstepping its jurisdiction over the Panchkula court. The judge concluded that once a remand order is issued by the competent court, the appropriate course of action for the petitioners is to challenge it at the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Any orders from the current court after a remand order by Panchkula Court would be improper.Final Decision:After hearing both parties, the judge dismissed the applications, stating that challenging the order of remand at the appropriate court is the correct legal recourse. The judge highlighted that the issue of whether the petitioners were served with summons in ECIR No. 17/2023 can only be determined once the respondent files a counter-affidavit. The court also emphasized that the failure to inform the court about the FIR and second ECIR on 09.06.2023 would be relevant in challenging the remand order issued by the Panchkula court. The applications were ultimately dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
