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

1991 Supreme(Guj) 277

S.M.SONI
SOLANKI RAVIBHAI DIPUBHAI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: HARIN P.RAVAL, K.J.SETHNA, M.A.BUKHARI

S. M. SONI, J.

( 1 ) WHETHER the applicants who apprehend arrest on the charge of non-cognizable offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life are entitled to be released on anticipatory bail pending investigation is a question to be answered in this application.

( 2 ) HEARD learned Advocate Mr. K. J. Shethna for the applicants, learned A. P. P. Shri M. A. Bukhari for the opponents Nos. 1 and 2 - state and the Investigating Officer and learned Advocate Mr. P. M. Thakkar for the original complainant-father of the victim. Mr. Thakkar is given audiance with a positive understanding that he has no locus standi, but, only on humanitarian ground representing the father of the victim.

( 3 ) BEFORE the application be decided on merits, it is necessary to decide as to which of the judgments - Gurbakshsingh v. State of Punjab and Haryana, (AIR 1980 SC 1632) should be followed or Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan (1987 Supp SCC 549) is required to be followed as both form precedent under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India. It is known that a pronouncement of law by Division Bench of the Court is binding on a Division Bench of the same or a smaller number of Judges and in order that












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