Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Ayub Khan – Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
FACTUAL ASPECT
2. The appellant is a District and Sessions Judge of Rajasthan Judicial Service. The appellant joined the judicial service in the year 1993. The appellant has filed the present appeal for limited purposes of striking down observations made in the impugned order against him and for quashing the adverse directions issued against him. The appellant decided a bail application filed by an accused who was charged with offences punishable under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) and Sections 3, 3/25 and 5/25 of the Arms Act, 1959. The appellant rejected the bail application. Therefore, the accused filed a bail application before the High Court. The impugned order has been passed on the bail application. By the impugned order, bail has been granted to the accused. While granting bail, adverse observations have been made by the High Court against the appellant. Certain directions have been issued which affect the appellant.
3. In the case of Jugal Kishore vs. State of Rajasthan1, (2020) 4 RLW 3386 Rajasthan High Court issued directions to the Trial Courts, which were to be implemented while decid
None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The provided excerpts do not contain language suggesting that any case has been invalidated or discredited by subsequent rulings. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no cases are identified as bad law.
Followed/Supported:
Abhimanue Etc. Etc. VS State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1716: The reference to "a useful reference may be made to the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court in Ayub Khan v. ... State of Rajasthan, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3763 : (2025) 2 Supreme 49" suggests that this case is being cited as a relevant authority or support in legal reasoning. The mention of a specific case citation indicates respect for its authority, implying it is still considered good law.
Neutral/Informative:
Kaushal Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2025 6 Supreme 129: The listing of bail applications and cases (Khan vs. ... State of Rajasthan; Tarachand alias Taru vs. ... State of Rajasthan; Sethu alias Angrez vs. ... State of Rajasthan) appears to be a factual or procedural mention without explicit treatment or judicial opinion provided. There is no indication of how these cases have been treated in subsequent rulings.
Criticized or Cautionary:
Sonu Agnihotri VS Chandra Shekhar - 2024 8 Supreme 737: This excerpt discusses judicial conduct, adverse remarks, and criticism of judges. It emphasizes that criticism of erroneous orders is permissible, but personal criticism or recording findings on conduct should be avoided. While it does not directly comment on the validity of a specific case, it provides guidance on judicial decorum and criticism, not treatment of case law.
Uncertain/Insufficient Information:
The second case (Abhimanue Etc. Etc. VS State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1716) references a 2024 decision and its citation, but does not specify whether it has been overruled or criticized.
The first case (Kaushal Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2025 6 Supreme 129) lists case names but lacks treatment language.
The third case (Sonu Agnihotri VS Chandra Shekhar - 2024 8 Supreme 737) discusses judicial conduct and criticism, not the treatment of a particular case law.
Abhimanue Etc. Etc. VS State of Kerala - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 1716: The treatment status of this case is unclear; it is cited as a reference, but no indication whether it has been overruled or criticized.
Kaushal Singh VS State of Rajasthan - 2025 6 Supreme 129: No explicit treatment or judicial comment is provided; thus, its treatment status remains uncertain.
Sonu Agnihotri VS Chandra Shekhar - 2024 8 Supreme 737: Focuses on judicial decorum rather than the treatment of specific case law; treatment status is ambiguous.
(1) Disposal of bail applications – Constitutional Courts can lay down principles governing grant of bail or anticipatory bail – However, Constitutional Courts cannot interfere with discretion of our....
Adverse remarks – There is difference between criticising erroneous orders and criticising a Judicial Officer – First part is permissible – Second category of criticism should best be avoided – No co....
General judicial directions regarding anticipatory bail procedures cannot impose mandatory requirements across all cases, emphasizing the need for individualized judicial discretion.
(1) Bail proceedings – When evidence is not fully analyzed and presumption of innocence is still operational in favour of accused, courts must then be extremely cautious in passing adverse remarks ag....
The court emphasized the constitutional right to timely bail hearings, mandating that bail applications be resolved within two weeks, aligning with the principles of justice and the presumption of in....
Bail orders should not be cancelled based on hyper-technical grounds in the absence of compelling circumstances, especially when prior judicial decisions affirmed bail rights.
(1) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – Non-communication of ACRs to appellant is arbitrary.(2) Discharge from Post of Judicial Officer – When Government had, on enquiry, come to conclusion tha....
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
