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

1992 Supreme(Guj) 135

K.J.VAIDYA
JASHUBHAI MAJDAN GADHAVI – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: HARIN P.RAVAL, S.T.MEHTA

K. J. VAIDYA, J.

( 1 ) RULE Mr. S. T. Mehta, Ld. APP appearing for the respondent-State waives service of the Rule. Heard Mr. Harin P. Raval and Mr. S. T. Mehta, learned APP appearing for the respective parties. 1. Whether in cases wherein, when any person who is accused of having committed an offence under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short the Atrocities Act) is specifically barred from having the benefit of anticipatory bail u/sec. 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short the Code) by virtue of an express provision as contained in Section 18 of the said Atrocities Act, and yet relying upon the decision in case of Pankaj Suthar v. State of Gujarat, reported in 1992, (1) Gujarat Law Herald, p. 86, makes an application for such anticipatory bail which if the court is not inclined to grant the same, whether at this stage, such an aggrieved person simultaneously, by way of an alternative remedy can be permitted to invoke the provisions contained in Section 439 of the Code to get himself released on regular ordinary bail, though he is not arrested by the Police ? This in short, is the simple but at the same time the ques











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