G KODANDAM Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by the Orders of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, in Crl.MP.No. 190 of 1996 in Cr.No. 129 of 1994, wherein the Magistrate refused to dispense with the presence of the petitioner who was granted bail pending investigation, the present revisionis filed.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner contended that the Magistrate, even without looking into the Criminal Rules of Practice and without considering the Judgment of the Surpreme Court that was cited across the Bar passed the impugned order which is contrary to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner brought my attention to Rule 30 of the Criminal Rules of Practice which is as hereunder:

(3.) Accordingly, I set aside the order of the XVI Metropolitan Magistrate made in Cri.MP.No. 190 of 1996 in Cr.No. 129 of 1994 and the presence of the petitioners is dispensed with till the charge-sheet is filed in the Court below.