Accused Enjoying Interim Bail In Pandemic Not Entitled To ‘Dual Benefit’ Of Default Bail U/S 167(2) CrPC: P&H HC [Read Order]

first_imgNews UpdatesAccused Enjoying Interim Bail In Pandemic Not Entitled To ‘Dual Benefit’ Of Default Bail U/S 167(2) CrPC: P&H HC [Read Order] Mehal Jain23 July 2020 4:44 AMShare This – xThe Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday denied default bail to an accused who, after two weeks in custody, was enlarged on interim bail on account of the COVID pandemic, which was extended from time-to-time, and is now finally required to surrender on September 4. Justice H. S. Madaan was considering a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge,…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday denied default bail to an accused who, after two weeks in custody, was enlarged on interim bail on account of the COVID pandemic, which was extended from time-to-time, and is now finally required to surrender on September 4. Justice H. S. Madaan was considering a revision petition against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, refusing statutory bail under section 167(2) Cr. P.C. “The petitioner remaining behind bars for a period of less than two weeks till date cannot cry foul and ask for bail in terms of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C”, remarked the Single Bench. Commenting that the petitioner “just wants to have dual benefit” enjoying interim bail, and at the same time, asking for concession of bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., Justice Madaan ruled that he is “certainly not entitled to such concession”. The Single Judge recorded that the petitioner was arrested on 19.3.2020 in a corruption case. On account of outbreak of Corona Pandemic, in view of the directions issued by the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition No.1/2020 – In RE: CONTAGION OF COVID-19 VIRUS IN PRISONS and as per the policy dated 24.3.2020 of the High Powered Committee, vide order dated 31.3.2020 the petitioner was released on interim bail for a period of 45 days. Such period expired on 14.5.2020. In view of subsequent direction dated 5.5.2020 by the Committee, interim bail was further extended for six weeks up to 25.6.2020 and then for 10 weeks w.e.f. 25.6.2020. The petitioner is required to surrender at District Jail on 4.9.2020. “Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. is meant to ensure that the investigation in the case is concluded promptly and challan is filed in the Court thereafter at the earliest so that an accused in a criminal case is not made to languish in the jail for a very long time”, observed Justice Madaan. The bench expounded that the provision is meant to ensure that the investigating agency “does not show callousness and lethargy in doing the investigation”, making them aware of the fact that in case investigation is not completed and challan is not filed within 90 days of arrest of the accused, where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than 10 years and within a period of 60 days, where the investigation relates to any other offence, then “the accused would become entitled to be released on bail and then the Investigating Officer at fault would be made to explain his acts and omissions in carrying out the investigation” within that time frame. “The law is well settled that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court is quite limited. This Court is to interfere only if there is an illegality or infirmity apparent on the face of the judgment/order passed by a Court below or the same is perverse and not otherwise”, iterated the Single Bench, adding that there is no such illegality or infirmity with the impugned order, much less apparent on the face of it. Justice Madaan asserted that the impugned order of the ASJ is “certainly not in violation of settled principles of criminal jurisprudence”. Click Here To Download Order[Read Order]Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more

‘It Will Only Help Students Of Elite Schools’: Karnataka HC Asks State To Clarify Who Will Benefit From NLSIU Domicile Reservation

first_imgNews Updates’It Will Only Help Students Of Elite Schools’: Karnataka HC Asks State To Clarify Who Will Benefit From NLSIU Domicile Reservation Mustafa Plumber25 Aug 2020 8:48 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court on Tuesday asked the State government to clarify on who would be the real beneficiaries of the 25 percent domicile reservation introduced for students of Karnataka at the National Law School of India University. A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani while hearing a batch of petitions questioning the Constitutional validity…Your free access to Live Law has expiredTo read the article, get a premium account.Your Subscription Supports Independent JournalismSubscription starts from ₹ 599+GST (For 6 Months)View PlansPremium account gives you:Unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments.Reading experience of Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.Subscribe NowAlready a subscriber?LoginThe Karnataka High Court on Tuesday asked the State government to clarify on who would be the real beneficiaries of the 25 percent domicile reservation introduced for students of Karnataka at the National Law School of India University. A division bench of Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ravi V Hosmani while hearing a batch of petitions questioning the Constitutional validity of the reservation, said “You are wanting to benefit students who are well placed. Students who really require reservation in Karnataka, you (state) are not giving.” The bench further orally observed that “it will only help the students of elite schools. You (NLSIU) will only get students from Bengaluru city. Students from schools like Bishops Cotton, Frank Anthony will be benefited, you are making their life easy. Reservation must be to uplift, not to give somebody on a platter.” The bench said the state will have to clarify this when they make their submission as to what is the real purpose of bringing in this horizontal reservation. The observations followed after advocate C K Nandakumar, appearing for two former students of NLSIU who challenged the reservation, argued that “Prima facie the representation of Karnataka Students in NLS is far in excess, of the population of the State in the Country. Far from under-represented they are over-represented, thus there is no requirement of such a domicile reservation.” Advocate Vikram Huilgol appearing for the state government submitted : “One of the primary interests of the State in providing horizontal reservation to students who have studied in the State (“Karnataka students”) is to ensure that a portion of the talent that is produced by the school is retained within the State, in the larger interests of the State’s development.” In the additional affidavit filed in the court, the state said that “The fact is that non-Karnataka students are unlikely to practice in Karnataka courts for want of knowledge of the Kannada language. On the other hand, there is a far greater possibility of a Karnataka student deciding to practice/work in Karnataka. Accordingly, by providing the impugned horizontal reservation to Karnataka students, the State seeks to ensure, as much as possible, that the State is benefited by the high standards of excellence at the NLSIU.” Arguing that there was no basis or reasons for bringing the Amendment Act, Nandakumar argued that “Where is the analysis on the part of the state. They should have done this exercise. No report is placed on record. On the contrary, I have placed on record that no reservation is necessary or justified.” To further justify his point, he relied on the Advocates Act, stating that “Section 30 of Advocates Act, points that there is absolutely no restriction on the right to practise anywhere in the country. On the other hand, there is entitlement… a right is given to practice anywhere. After graduating in legal study, can I go to Meghalaya and practice? Yes,” he submitted. Nandakumar also argued that “The effect of the amendment is that it takes away the powers of the Executive Council of NLSIU. Secondly, the role of the state of Karnataka from the statute (NLSIU Act) itself is very limited, to carry out an amendment.” He added that the State had failed to show reasons for the amendment and therefore the amendment was manifestly arbitrary on the touchstone of Article 14. He prayed before the court for striking down the amendment. Senior Advocate K G Raghavan, on Monday opened the arguments in the case. He pointed to the court that “The reservation is in violation of Article 19 (1) (g) and is violative of Article 14, he said there is no rational basis for making distinction between Karnataka and students from outside”. He asked when the admission process had started from January, can this amendment of April 27, affect the admission process. He claimed that the only reason for this amendment is that law schools in some other states have made reservations for their students. “Is this a sufficient reason for making reservation for Karnataka Students?” he asked. Raghvan submitted that the Bar Council of India, Bar Council of India Trust and Society formed by the trust, all of them have created the University and it was established under the statute of the State. “It is a creation of the Bar Council with the blessing of the state.” He added that “It is not like the Bangalore University or Karnataka Law University or Karnataka University.” It is not a private body but an autonomous body he clarified. Raghavan also questioned the intent as made out by the state in its statement of objections to pass the amendment.”The State seems to suggest that this amendment became necessary to ensure equality within the state among the socially and backward class of people. As a populist statement it is quite attractive, but it needs to be Constitutionally valid too.” A reply filed by the University was also referred by him to show that for the year 2019-20, the amount extended by the state government meets 5 percent of the University’s annual expenditure. For the year, 2020-2021 the amount extended will be 1 per cent of Universities annual expenditure. Raghavan submitted “They (State govt) just seem to take it for granted that NLS is an aided institution.” On the point of whether there is anything produced to show there is socio-economic inequality, Raghavan contended that “The object of reservation has to be to promote state interest or promote interest of a backward region.” Moreover, “After the introduction of Article 15 (5), in the Constitution of India, reservation into any educational institution has to satisfy Article 15 (5). If it does not, such a reservation cannot be justified on the basis of Article 14,” he argued. On Wednesday submission will be made on behalf of Bar Council of India, who has also moved the court challenging the domicile reservation. In March, the Karnataka State Assembly passed the National Law School Of India (Amendment) Act, 2020, which received the Karnataka Governor’s assent on April 27. As per this amendment, NLSIU should reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for ‘students of Karnataka’. The amendment inserts the following proviso in Section 4 of the National Law School of India Act :- “Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act and the regulations made thereunder, the school shall reserve horizontally twenty-five percent of seats for students of Karnataka.” As per the explanation of this section, “student of Karnataka” means a student who has studied in any one of the recognized educational institutions in the State for a period of not less than ten years preceding to the qualifying examination.” Subscribe to LiveLaw, enjoy Ad free version and other unlimited features, just INR 599 Click here to Subscribe. All payment options available.loading….Next Storylast_img read more