SURENDRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts of this case are thus :

(2.) ON 24.3.99 the learned trial Court also observed that the accused Surendra (applicant in this revision petition) was absconding, hence, non -bailable warrant be issued against him.

(3.) LOOKING to the provisions of section 321, CrPC discretion has been given to the Court in this regard. Keeping that aspect of the case in view it is but clear that the discretion was exercised by the trial Court in a judicial manner; it was not exercised arbitrarily. That apart, the accused -applicant Surendra was not at all being tried in that Session trial as he was absconding. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that there has not been any illegality or impropriety in passing the impugned order by the trial Court. Thus, this revision petition is absolutely devoid of any merit which is not admitted, and is dismissed in limine.