Click here to view

Do Not Grant Regular Bail When Interim Anticipatory Bail Is Granted By Higher Courts And Matter Is Pending: Supreme Court To Trial Courts

Once a regular bail is granted by a subordinate Court on the strength of the interim/pre-arrest bail granted by the superior Court, even if the superior Court is to dismiss the plea of anticipatory bail upon fuller consideration of the matter, the regular bail granted by the subordinate Court would continue to hold the field, rendering the ultimate rejection of the pre-arrest bail by the superior Court meaningless.

The consideration of regular bail applications upon surrender during the pendency of the application for pre-arrest bail before a superior Court must be discouraged.

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2411/2016

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 04-12-2015 in

ABA No. 4049/2015 passed by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi)

 RUKMANI MAHATO Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

 THE STATE OF JHARKHAND Respondent(s)

In the instant case the Apex Court was hearing a Special Leave Petition filed by one Ms. Rukmani Mahato, challenging an order passed in December, 2015, wherein the Jharkhand High Court had refused to grant her pre-arrest bail. Subsequent to this order, she was granted pre-arrest bail by the Apex Court  on 04.04.2016  vide the following order:

“Issue notice.
In the event the petitioner is arrested, she may be released on bail by making deposit of Rs.25,000/- in cash to the satisfaction of the trial Court and shall co-operate with the investigation at all further stages.”

During  the pendency of the anticipatory bail application ,the petitioner surrendered before the learned Trial Court on 21.04.2016 and was released on regular bail.

When this fact was brought to the notice of the Apex Court, the order dated

18.04.2017 was passed cancelling the pre-arrest bail t o the accused petitioner and also the regular bail granted to the accused-petitioner by the learned Trial Court by its order dated 21.04.2016.

Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed dismay over the granting of regular bail when the matter was pending before a superior court.

The judgment has been circulated with a direction by the Apex court to curb such anomalous practice.

Day 1: 17th July 2017

Day 2: 18th July 2017

Day 3: 19th July 2017

Day 4 – 5: 20th & 21st July 2017

Bench Book for Adoption

1.Lalita Kumari v. State of UP:FIR mandatory in cognizable cases
2.Mohd. Ahmad Khan v. Shah Bano Begum:Section 125 of CrPC Secular
3.D.K. Basu v. State of Bengal:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
4.Nilabati Bahera v. State of Orissa:Compensation in case of unlawful arrest and detention
5.Sheela Barse v. State of Maharashtra:Rights of women relating to arrest
6.Joginder Kumar v. State of UP:SC guidelines relating to rights of the arrested person
7.Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha:Right of maintenance in Live-in-Relationships
8.Shiv Shankar Singh v. State of Bihar:Filing of Multiple FIR
9.Satya Pal Singh v. State of MP:Father of deceased victim has right to appeal
10.State of UP v. Singhara Singh:Section 164 by necessary implication prohibits the magistrate from giving oral evidence of the confession made to him
11.State of Madhya Pradesh v. Rustum:Computation of period of 60/90 Days u/s 167 of CrPC
12.CBI v. Anupam J. Kulkarni:Police Remand can not exceed 15 Days
13.Mubarak Ali v. State of Bombay:Offence triable where the act is done
14.Shakuntala Devi v. State of U.P.:Availability of Civil Remedy does not bar filing of a case u/s 200 of CrPC
15.Dina Nath v. Emperor:No summary trial in serious or complicated cases
16.Surendra Singh v. State of UP:Where a Judge who wrote the Judgment dies before it was delivered or pronounced, another Judge can not deliver it
17.Naresh v. State of UP:Alteration of Conviction u/s 302 IPC to one u/s 304 IPC by HC is not justified u/s 362 of CrPC
18.Ashok Kumar v. UOI:Constitutional validity of Section 433-A of CrPC
19.Rasiklal v. Kishore Khanchand Wadhwani:Right to bail u/s 436 in bailable offences is an absolute and indefeasible right
20.Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab:SC guidelines relating to anticipatory bail
21.Jagdish Ram v. State of Rajasthan:Quashing of FIR on account of delay
22.State of MP v. Madan Lal:No compromise in Rape cases
23.Manohar Singh v. State of Rajasthan:Compensation to victim of Crime
24.S.R. Sukumar v. Sunnad Raghuram:Amendment in complaint can be done
25.Siddaharth Vashisht v. State(NCT of Delhi):Cryptic Telephonic Message of a cognizable offence not to be treated as FIR##

Deficiency in Insurance Services under Consumer Protection Act 1986 – A Critical View & Challenges Abhay Butle Assistant Professor S.P. College of Law Chandrapur Maharashtra (India) The State was interested in diverting insurance funds for developmental purpose or at least to stop insurance companies from investing the funds in other business enterprises, which might affect prospect of the insured people and property. However, effective the law might be, the control over the funds used and their investment was difficult. Despite prescribing the goals, objectives and directives, it was not possible for the government to supervise the investment and control the funds of insurance companies. The advantages of insurance are being increasingly realized by people all over the world. For instance everybody is aware that life insurance not only inculcates the habit of saving but also provides protection and security to the insured. With the phenomenal growth of trade commerce and industry the modern day entrepreneur also believes that it is in his own interest to have and insurance cover .The business of insurance has undoubtedly developed at a fast pace over the year. It needs however to be seen whether side by side the insurance companies have also achieved consumer satisfaction .It is perhaps of the term service in the Consumer Protection Act 1986 the intention undoubtedly was to provide cheap and expeditious redresses to the aggrieved consumers presumably resenting judicial scrutiny of their actions. The public sector insurance corporations as well as the private insurance companies also challenged the jurisdiction of consumer redressal agencies set up under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 to entertain disputes relating to Insurance service. The act however restricts the ambit and scope of the power of the redressal agencies to award compensation to the aggrieved policy holder. It is only when there is deficiency in the service rendered to him and he has suffered any loss or injury due to the negligence of the insurers that relief by way of compensation can be granted to him. In other words the consumer is entitled to relief under the Act if and only if he establishes that he hired the service complained of for consideration and that the service provided to his has a deficiency.

Read More

The relevant features of The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act – 2015 & Juvenile Justice Rules-2016 By – Md. Faheem Kirmani & Rajshree Aparna Kujur

Click here for complete article

Smt Kavita Devi Alias Kavita … vs The State Of Jharkhand Through The … on 27 February, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P. (C) No. 738 of 2017
—
1. Smt. Kavita Devi @ Kavita Dalmia
2. Smt. Neelam Devi @ Neelam Dalmia
3. Girdhari Lal Dalmia — —- Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand through the Deputy Commissioner, Giridih
2. The Sub Divisional Officer, Giridih
3. The Anchal Adhikari, Giridih — — Respondents
—
CORAM:The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh
For the Petitioners: M/s Sumeet Gadodia, Anurag Kashyap, Advocates
For the Resp – State: Mr. Atanu Banerjee, GA

Click here to open full Judgement

Click to view the complete Article in PDF format.

DD Podhigai telecast an interview with Mr P M Nair, retired IAS officer, who was the Secretary to Dr Kalam Sir when he was the President. I summarise the points he spoke in a voice choked with emotion. Mr Nair authored a book titled “Kalam Effect“.

1. Dr Kalam used to receive costly gifts whenever he went abroad as it is customary for many nations to give gifts to the visiting Heads of State. Refusing the gift would become an insult to the nation and an embarrassment for India. So, he received them and on his return, Dr Kalam asked the gifts to be photographed and then catalogued and handed over to the archives. Afterwards, he never even looked at them. He did not take even a pencil from the gifts received when he left Rashtrapathi Bhavan.

2. In 2002, the year Dr Kalam took over, the Ramadan month came in July-August. it was a regular practice for the President to host an iftar party. Dr Kalam asked Mr Nair why he should host a party to people who are already well fed and asked him to find out how much would be the cost. Mr Nair told it would cost around Rs. 22 lakhs. Dr Kalam asked him to donate that amount to a few selected orphanages in the form of food, dresses and blankets. The selection of orphanages was left to a team in Rashtrapathi Bhavan and Dr Kalam had no role in it. After the selection was made, Dr Kalam asked Mr Nair to come inside his room and gave him a cheque for Rs 1 lakh. He said that he was giving some amount from his personal savings and this should not be informed to anyone. Mr Nair was so shocked that he said “Sir, I will go outside and tell everyone . People should know that here is a man who not only donated what he should have spent but he is giving his own money also”. Dr Kalam though he was a devout Muslim did not have Iftar parties in the years in which he was the President.

3. Dr Kalam did not like “Yes Sir” type of people. Once when the Chief Justice of India had come and on some point Dr Kalam expressed his view and asked Mr Nair, “Do you agree?” Mr Nair said “No Sir, I do not agree with you”.

The Chief Justice was shocked and could not believe his ears. It was impossible for a civil servant to disagree with the President and that too so openly. Mr Nair told him that the President would question him afterwards why he disagreed and if the reason was logical 99% he would change his mind.

4. Dr Kalam invited 50 of his relatives to come to Delhi and they all stayed in Rashtrapathi Bhavan. He organised a bus for them to go around the city which was paid for by him. No official car was used. All their stay and food was calculated as per the instructions of Dr Kalam and the bill came to Rs 2 lakhs which he paid. In the history of this country no one has done it.

Now, wait for the climax, Dr Kalam’s elder brother stayed with him in his room for the entire one week as Dr Kalam wanted his brother to stay with him. When they left, Dr Kalam wanted to pay rent for that room also. Imagine the President of a country paying rent for the room in which he is staying. This was any way not agreed to by the staff who thought the honesty was getting too much to handle!!!.

5. When Kalam Sir was to leave Rashtrapathi Bhavan at the end of his tenure, every staff member went and met him and paid their respects. Mr Nair went to him alone as his wife had fractured her leg and was confined to bed. Dr Kalam asked why his wife did not come. He replied that she was in bed due to an accident. Next day, Mr.Nair saw lot of policemen around his house and asked what had happened. They said that the President of India was coming to visit him in his house. He came and met his wife and chatted for some time. Mr Nair says that no president of any country would visit a civil servant’s house and that too on such a simple pretext.

I thought I should give the details as many of you may not have seen the telecast and so it may be useful.

The younger brother of AJP Abdul Kalam runs an umbrella repairing shop. When Mr. Nair met him during Kalam’s funeral, he touched his feet, in token of respect for both Mr. Nair and Brother.

Shared By: K.J. Chopara