| Cr.P.C. S.299 is applicable when the accused intentionally makes inaccessable and not merely when it is shown that it is not possible to trace him Jayendra Vishnu ThakurVs.State of Maharahstra and Anr.(2009)7SCC104 |
|
| Cr.P.C. S.299 Evidence recorded in earlier trial cannot be read against absconded accused C.B.I. Vs. Abu Salem Ansari (2011)4SCC426 |
|
| Cr.P.C.S 299 Evidece recorded earler was read as evidence on the basis of pursis for joint trial of absconding accused, has been upheld by Bombay High Court (DB) Mohd. Hanif and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra -2016 (4) Bom.C.R. (Cri) 538 |
|
| Cr.P.C. S.299 and 190 and 173 Law does not contemplate waiting arrest of absconding accused till charge sheet Dinesh Dalmia Vs. C.B.I. 2007 (8) SCC 770 |
|
| Cr.P.C. S.299 No discharge of absconding accused unless evidence was recorded as common. This section does not empower Court to delete absconding accused name Smt. Urmila Sahu Vs. State of Orissa 1998 Cri.L.J. 1372 (Orissa) |
|
| Cr.P.C. S.299 Court can record common evidence on prosecutions application State of Hyderabad Vs. Bhimaraya AIR 1953 AP 63 |
