Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.N. Bhagawati, CJI., Ranganath Mishra, J.
JAGDISH, OTHERS, PETITIONERS
Versus
HARENDRAJIT SINGH, RESPONDENT.
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No. 3248 of 1985 (From the Judgment, Order dated October 14, 1985 of the High Court of M.P. at Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 286 of 1985), decided on October 31, 1985.
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 136 - Special Leave - Refusing or cancelling bail or anticipatory bail - This special leave petition is directed against an order passed by High Court setting aside order of trial court granting bail to petition – Held, This Court does not ordinarily in exercise of its discretion under Article 136 entertain petitions for special leave to appeal against orders granting or refusing or cancelling bail or anticipatory bail - These are matters where the High Court should become final and this Court should not entertain petitions for special leave - Petition is dismissed
ORDER
1. This special leave petition is directed against an order passed by the High Court setting aside the order of the trial court granting bail to the petitioners.
2. This Court does not ordinarily, in the exercise of its discretion under Article 136, entertain petitions for special leave to appeal against orders granting or refusing or cancelling bail or anticipatory bail. These are matters where the High Court should become final and this Court should not entertain petitions for special leave. The special leave petition is dismissed with these observations. We hope and trust that the trial will be expedited and completed at an early date.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
