Must Read

Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC477

By
Image
Gulshan Prakash v. State of Haryana (2010) 1 SCC 477||Case Summary  Introduction  In this appeal, the Court has interpreted Article 15(4) of the Fundamental Right. It has been added by the 1st Amendment Act, of 1951. Facts The State of Haryana instructed Maharshi Dayanand University (MDU), Rohtak to conduct entrance examination for MD/MS/PG courses for the Session 2008-2009. The appellant made a representation to the Health Secretary for providing reservation for SC and ST in the Post Graduate courses, Since there was no response from the Health Secretary the Appellant filed a petition in the High Court.  The High Court dismissed the petition of the appellant therefore the appellant approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave Petition under Article 136. Appellant Contentions  MDU, Rohtak has provided 20% reservation for the graduate level courses or undergraduate courses therefore the said University should also provide reservation in for the PG courses.  The Government o
Post a Comment

Moti Ram v. State of M.P, 1978

By

 Moti Ram v. State of M.P, 1978

Facts

Moti Ram, a poor mason, appealed in the Supreme Court and obtained an order for bail 'to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate granted bail on a surety for Rs 10,000. Since the appellant was unable to furnish the surety his brother produced his assets as surety which the Magistrate had rejected as it belonged to other districts.
After aggrieved from the order of the Magistrate, the petitioner again approached the Supreme Court, to modify the original order “to the extent the petitioner be released on furnishing surety of Rs 2,000 or on executing a personal bond or pass any direction which may deem fit to the Honourable Court". 

Issue

  1. Whether the order of the Magistrate is justified? 
  2. Does the Court have power under CRPC, 1973 to enlarge bond without sureties?
  3. What criteria should be followed to decide the amount of bail?
  4. Can the Court reject a surety on the ground that his estate is situated in a different State? 

Ratio Decidendi 

  1. The order of the Magistrate is a double denial of bail benefit. At first by demands a huge amount which a miserable mason cannot afford. Secondly, by refusing the surety of the petitioner's brother on the ground that the estate belonged to another district.
  2. American Jurisprudence provides the power to the Court to release the defendant without bail or on his own recognizance.
  3. The Gujrat Committee stated that the bail system causes discrimination by demanding amounts that cannot be afforded by the poor.
  4. It is evil of the bail system that poor persons are deprived of their liberty without trial and conviction. Consequently, it is suggested that it is not always mandatory for the Magistrate to grant bail on sureties.
  5. Risk of monetary loss is insufficient and not the only deterrent to ensure the appearance of the accused in the Court after release.
  6. Geographical allergy at the judicial level makes a mockery of Article 14 of the Constitution.
  7. The need for surety and its extent depends on variables.

Decision 

  1. Appeal allowed.
  2. The Court ordered the Magistrate to release the petitioner on his own bond in a sum of Rs. 1000.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

By
Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

By
Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more