SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2008 Supreme(SC) 1339

ARIJIT PASAYAT, HARJIT SINGH BEDI
JOGINDER ALIAS JINDI – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF HARYANA – Respondent


ADVOCATES APPEARED:
Ranjit Kumar, Senior Advocate (Subodh Kr. Pathak, Shashi Ranjan, B. Pattanaik and Dharmendra Kr. Sinha, Advocates) for the Petitioner.

ORDER

1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

2. Since the petitioner alleges that the offences charged are bailable offences, the High Court was not justified in holding that custodial, interrogation was necessary. Section 438 Cr.P.C in terms relates to non-bailable offences. Therefore, a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C in relation to bailable offences is misconceived, even if it is accepted that alleged offences are bailable. However, if the petitioner surrenders and seeks regular bail, the same shall be considered uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top