Chirag Kumar Sardana v. State Of Haryana And Another
!"#$!%&'&"()**
+ , *** -., , *** , ,
) /0 * , ,
1111 , 2*
0
344
,
! "#
$ %& ' $ $( $ ) *+ ,
-' . //' / 012 # 3 $ $ % ' 4 $ 4(3 4(! 43 5% 55 1 6!($ / 55 6 7. 8. ) *+%5, 9' $ $ $ ( $!
$
7 / 012
. /
'/ 0
' / ):, ;
'% $ / * +$ 7 / 6 /'
6 //
' 6 ' /'
$!
$ ' * ' $!
$ /' ' 7 /
/
< 6 ' 2 '
<'/ .= / 6
% #/ '
' 6 8 .
+ . // ' / / % $ / ' /' '
.
' ' /
' /
'
):, ;
/ / % $ 0 .=
/ 6 S.V. Muzumdar v. Gujarat State Fertilizer Co. Ltd. 2005(2) RCR (Criminal) 860 and M/s. Bhaskar Ind. Ltd. v. M/s. Bhiwani Denim & Apparels Ltd. 2001(4) RCR (Criminal) 137 this Court in CRM-M-25963-2023 titled as Suresh Kumar and another Vs. The State of Haryana and another 2023 (2) Law Herald 1498 has already laid down the ratio of law that the presence of accused on each and every date is not necessary and even the charges can be framed in his absence. (
6
/ 9 ' / >
' < < < '/ . <
/ / * 1/ // < / /
-' " .= / 6
!"
#$% %& '' ' 4! 6 .'6 * < '
/ < 9' ' - 8 < ' " ! "
#$ ! " $ % $ # &$ & " & "#
& %
!
# # # " % ' " $ " $
# &&" $
"
$
$ #
$ ( " ) & " $
& #
" & &
$ %
*+ + &" +
* "
" $ , &
" ! %
#
&
%
#
! # #%
# %
$ ) "$%
$ $#
%
& "#
! # #
%
" $ %
!
# %
+ - $ #
+ " %
. 8.
In fact, a two Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was confronted with a similar factual matrix in %()
& ## '
' ' * 9' '-8 8 ?
6 ' "/!
0
##
1 2) 3,
# $ "4 5 !"
&$
" &
#"&
5 " "# #
& " # 4 ! $
#3633 $ ! " ! $ 7!8 # # "
4 5 #
" 9 $ #0 $ #0"#
# $$%
$
#$
# $
& " "
$ # $
#
$ 5
5 # $
$
# " "
5 $%
# $"4 &&# "
& %
$ $
# " 4 5
! ( !
, 7!8 #
&& "& "$$" 4 & :6& #
+
$ " 9
$ " $ #$
$ '
#
&
+ "# !" $ 7!8 , "
$ %#
"#"4
5 /. 0 .@ / 6 1 '
'
/ 9<'/
+,'
' / / / -' .= / 6 -
' " ''''
/ / ' ' *6 "# $ # $ 0 $ " " & # $ & # # ";$ &$ $ #
$ # $ $
.
! % $& 1
< ! /+## 012 31 4 = *7$ # $ " # $ * $
'/ 1 A ' 1
6 9/ < '/'
/
' < $ $( $ / <' 6 $ $ $ ( 9 * '
'B
3 $ $ $ ( < ' ' B C 'B
B
<
B
6
&B
6 / /
/ . '
* 6 / 6 '< / % ' / ), ),
, 6782 $ ), > 9'C ?C# ), >
?C#