evolawyer/inlegalbert-sc-ner-silver huggingface dataset:
SAMUNDER SINGH

STATE OF RAJASTHAN & OTHERS

JANUARY 12, 1987

[M.P. THAKKAR AND B.C. RAY, JJ.]

' Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s. 438---Aitticipatory bai/- When not lo be granted.

While the matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation the C High Court granted anticipatory bail to the accused in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness or the matter.

Subsequent to the fillng of the appeal by special leave by the father of the deceased the investigation had been concluded by the police and challan filed, and the accused were released on ball by the D Chief Judicial Magistrate.

Dismissing tlie appeal as infructuous, the Court,

HELD: The High Court was under no compulsion to exercise its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter or this nature. (9800 I E \

The appropriate course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the case on the basis of the material before him at the point of time of accused's arrest in case they were arrested. It was, therefore, neither pmdent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which order was very likely to occasion pre- F judice by its very nature and timing. [9808-D]

CRIMINAL

APPELLATE

JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 22 of 1987.

From the Judgment and Order dated 29.10.1986 of the Rajas- G than High Court in Crl. M.B.A. No. 1395/86

Gopal Subramaniam, A.M. Garg and R. Venkataramani for the Petitioner.

Dalveer Bhandari for the Respondents.

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

(1987] 1 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ...

THAKKAR, J. The widespread belief that dowry deaths are even now treated with some casualness at all levels seems to be well grounded. The High Court has granted anticipatory bail in such a

B matter. We are of the opinion that the High Court should not have \ exercised its jurisdiction to release the accused on anticipatory bail in disregard of the magnitude and seriousness of the matter. The matter regarding the unnatural death of the daughter-in-law at the house of her father-in-law was still under investigation and the appropriate

i course to adopt was to allow the concerned Magistrate to deal with the -- same on the basis of the material before the Court at the point of time c of their arrest in case they were arrested. It was neither prudent nor proper for the High Court to have granted anticipatory bail which -1 order was very likely to occasion prejudice by its very nature and timing. We therefore consider it essential to sound a serious note of caution for future. The High Court is under no compulsion to exercise

D its jurisdiction to grant anticipatory bail in a matter of this nature. So far as the present matter is concerned, since it has become infructuous, we do not propose to pass any order. Subject to these observations, the appeal is dismissed.

P.S.S.

Appeal dismissed. "
ABID HUSSAIN AND OTHERS ETC.

A v.

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

JANUARY 22, 1987

[E.S VENKATARAMIAH AND M.P. THAKKAR, JJ.] B

Constitution of India, Articles 14 and 32: :Air-Conditioned Coach Incharges-Attendants, Northern Railway-Discriminated against in payment of overtime allowance-Held not justified.

The petitioners, Air-Conditioned Coach Incbarges-Attendants C in Northern Railway, contended in their writ petitions that their counterparts in Western, Central and Eastern Railways were being .Paid overtime allowance for extra duty hours exceeding 96 hours in two weeks, and sought a direction to the Union of India and Railway Administration to pay them the same allowance.

D Allowing the writ petition, the Court,

HELD: There was no justification for denying overtime allowance to the petitioners working in the Northern Railway. The Union of India and the Railway Administration to pay with effect from June 1, 1984 overtime allowance to the petitioners on the same basis on E which their counterparts in the other three Railways are paid. l48B-C]

The benefit of the order to be extended to all such employees including those who have retired and those who have not joined as petitioners. [48D l

(. All arrears of such allowances uptodate to be paid within four \ mouths. l48D]

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (C) Nos.13748-84 of 1984 ..

With

Writ Petition (c) Nos. 15806-26of 1984.

(Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.)

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[1987] 2 S.C.R.

N.N. Keshwani and IR.N. Keshwani for the Petitioners.

O.P. Sharma, Girish Chandra, C.V. Subba Rao and Miss S.

Relan for the Respondentn.

The following Order of Court was delivered:

It is not disputed that the Air-conditioned Coach Incharges- Attendants are being paid overtime allowances for extra duty hours ( .. exceeding 96 hours in two weeks in the Western Railway, Central Railway and Eastern Railway. There is no justification for deuying + overtime allowances on the same basis to the Air-conditioned Coach ;,......

C Jncharges-Attendants in the Northern Railway. We accordingly direct the Union of India and the Railway Administration to pay with effect from July 1, 1984 the overtime allowance to the Air-conditioned Coach lncharges-Attendants working in the Northern Railway on the same basis on which the Air-conditioned Coach Incharges-Attendants in the other three Railways, referred to above, are paid. All arrears of D such allowances upto date shall be paid as early as possible and in any eveni not later than four months from today. The benefit of this order shall be extended to all such employees including those who have retired and those who have not joined as petitioners herein.

The Writ Petitions are allowed. No costs.

P.S.S.

Petitions allowed.