Back
Shacheendra Dwivedi, J.
Kalyan Singh v. State of M.P.
Misc. Cr. Case No. 988 of 1995 (G); Decided on 8.5.1995*.
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 438 -- bar in granting anticipatory bail not prima facie existing -- bail may be granted.
¼1½ vuqlwfpr tkfr rFkk tutkfr ¼vR;kpkj fuokj.k½ vf/kfu;e] 1989 & /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼10½ rFkk 18 & /kkjk 3 ¼1½ ¼10½ ds v/khu ÁFken`V~;k vijk/k fl) ugha & /kkjk 18 ds v/khu otZZu ykxw ugha & vfxze tekur eatwj dh tk ldrh gSA
¼2½ naM Áfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 & /kkjk 438 vfxze tekur dh eatwjh ij otZu ÁFken`V~;k fo|eku ugha & tekur eatwj dh tk ldrh gSA
The applicant apprehends his arrest in Crime No. 20/95 registered for the offences under sections 294, 323, I.P.C. and section 3 (1) (x) of S.C. and S.T. (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
The report of the incident was lodged by the complainant after more than two days. At this stage, I do not wish to make any expression about the merits. However, considering the detailed report prima facie at this stage it does not appear that the alleged offence was committed against the complainant for his belonging to S.C. or S.T. and the accusation against the applicant is under clouds, due to the delayed report. In the facts and circumstances, a bar created by section 18 of the Act, is not attracted.
The applicant is directed to be released on bail In the event of his arrest on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- with two sureties of Rs. 5,000/- each to the satisfaction of the Police Officer competent to arrest under section 438, Cr.P.C.
C.C. by to-morrow.
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.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
