Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranjan Gogoi, CJI., Aniruddha Bose, J.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Sapna Jain & Ors. - Respondents
Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 4322-4324 of 2019, 4571/2019 (II), 4546/2019 (II-A), Diary No. 15477/2019 (II-A)(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 11-04-2019 in CRLWP Nos. 1996/2019, 1997/2019 and 1998/2019 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay)
Decided On : 29-05-2019
Clarification of Position in Law - Pre-arrest Bail - The Supreme Court issued notice to clarify the position in law regarding pre-arrest bail, noting divergent views taken by different High Courts. The Court refrained from interfering with the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court in the present case but emphasized that future requests for pre-arrest bail should consider the Court's dismissal of a similar matter in a different High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The Supreme Court issued notice to clarify the position in law regarding pre-arrest bail due to divergent views taken by different High Courts. The Court refrained from interfering with the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court in the present case.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found it necessary to clarify the position in law regarding pre-arrest bail due to divergent views taken by different High Courts. The Court refrained from interfering with the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court in the present case.
Issues: Clarification of position in law regarding pre-arrest bail due to divergent views taken by different High Courts.
Ratio Decidendi: The Supreme Court refrained from interfering with the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court in the present case but emphasized that future requests for pre-arrest bail should consider the Court's dismissal of a similar matter in a different High Court.
Final Decision: The Supreme Court issued notice to clarify the position in law regarding pre-arrest bail due to divergent views taken by different High Courts and refrained from interfering with the pre-arrest bail granted by the High Court in the present case.
ORDER
SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4322-4324/2019, Diary No. 15477/2019 and SLP(Crl.) No. 4546/2019
Delay condoned.
1. Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
2. As different High Courts of the country have taken divergent views in the matter, we are of the view that the position in law should be clarified by this Court. Hence, the notice.
3. As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this Court by order dated 27.5.2019 passed in SLP(Crl.) No. 4430/2019 had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case.
4. Beyond the above, we do not consider it necessary to observe anything further.
5. The present matters alongwith other connected matters (SLP(Crl.) No. 244/2019, W.P. (Crl.) No. 118/2019, T.C. (Crl.) No. 3/2018, T.C. (Crl.) No. 4/2018, SLP(Crl.) No. 4634/2014, SLP(Crl.) No. 993/2016, W.P.(Crl.) No. 309/2018, W.P.(Crl.) No. 333/2018 and W.P.(Crl.) No. 34/2019) be listed before a Bench of three Judges.
SLP(Crl.) No. 4571/2019
6. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusing the relevant material, we are not inclined to interfere. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
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
