<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1976 (8) TMI 183 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298007</link>
    <description>When accused persons had already appeared and were on bail, a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report could transfer the case for inquiry or trial without first issuing process under Section 204, because service of process in their presence would be an empty formality. The decisive requirement was that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the police report and found sufficient ground to proceed. The transferee Magistrate could also enforce attendance under the existing bail bond, and the accused&#039;s non-appearance on the fixed date justified coercive steps, including cancellation of bail bond and issue of a non-bailable warrant. The challenge to the transfer and subsequent orders therefore failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Oct 2021 10:01:15 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=657727" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1976 (8) TMI 183 - PATNA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298007</link>
      <description>When accused persons had already appeared and were on bail, a Magistrate taking cognizance on a police report could transfer the case for inquiry or trial without first issuing process under Section 204, because service of process in their presence would be an empty formality. The decisive requirement was that the Magistrate had applied his mind to the police report and found sufficient ground to proceed. The transferee Magistrate could also enforce attendance under the existing bail bond, and the accused&#039;s non-appearance on the fixed date justified coercive steps, including cancellation of bail bond and issue of a non-bailable warrant. The challenge to the transfer and subsequent orders therefore failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 03 Aug 1976 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298007</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>