Source: https://www.lawweb.in/2017/06/basic-principles-to-be-followed-if.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:33:14+00:00

Document:
necessitate for balancing between intra-fundamental rights.
of the collective, have a fundamental right for a fair trial.
public interest and serve the majesty of rule of law.
State of Bihar & Ors.
Citation: AIR 2017 SC 1079.
principal issue raised is disposed of by this singular order.
proclaimed offenders in FIR No. 362/16 dated 13.05.2016.
in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 132 of 2016 are manifold.
pass appropriate direction to register an F.I.R.
against the respondent Nos.3 and 4.
prayer does not any more survive.
dated 13.5.16 was registered under PS Nagar Thana, Dist.
302/120(B) and 34 of IPC.
petitioner has a narrative that goes back to the year 2005.
had threatened to eliminate him and his family members.
started moving towards the Station Road. About 7.30 p.m.
figured in the murder of former JNU President, Mr.
transferred to Bhagalpur jail for six months.
trials in pending cases by video conferencing.
13. We have heard Mr. Shanti Bhushan and Mr.
Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. P.S.
Narasimha, learned Additional Solicitor General and Mr.
learned counsel for the State of Bihar.
against the 4th respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No.
conscience of this Court to take recourse to such a mode.
3 Siwan Town PS case no.
5 Hussainganj PS case no.
6 Siwan Town PS case no.
7 Siwan Town PS case no.
9 Mairwa (Jiradei) PS case no.
10 Siwan Town PS Case no.
11 Pachurkhi PS case no.
12 Siwan Town PS case no.
15 Siwan Town PS caseno.
16 Hussainganj PS case no.
17 Andar PS case no. 32/96 Dt.
18 Andar PS case no. 36/96 Dt.
19 Siwan Town PS case no.
the High Court and in certain cases bail has been granted.
history-sheeter Type ‘A’ (who is beyond reform).
Court, and the Court is the sole protector of the said right.
prison to any prison in the other State.
held by Chandrachud, J., (as His Lordship then was) in D.
cannot be sustained unless Article 21 is satisfied.
assistance to the appellants in our opinion.
in other words, to act judicially.
judgment really pertain to protection of prisoners in the jail.
itself does not lay down the principle in absolute terms.
transfer from one prison to another is not a ministerial act.
apology for trial or promote and safeguard free and fair trial.
extreme terms. And we have a duty to balance.
trial in the constitutional and statutory backdrop.
enshrined in Article 21 of our Constitution.
(2) v. State of Bihar11, Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v.
Noor Aga v. State of Punjab15, Amarinder Singh v.
Rattiram v. State of M.P.19 and Natasha Singh v.
and dignity for human life at a much higher pedestal.
stage-managed, tailored and partisan trial.
discontinuance of prosecution or dismissal of indictment.
society and the confidence of the people in judicial system.
favour, the prosecution may be brought to an end.
ostracized while applying the test of fair trial.
the community and the duty of the court.
and eventual appreciation of the factual scenario in entirety.
to be accepted and ultimately protected.
procedure which can withstand the test of reasonableness.
would imply balancing of rights.
way, dwelt upon the “intra-conflict of a fundamental right”.
its significance and primacy over certain individual interest.
Constitution does not commend acceptation.
power and jurisdiction. The plea that is propounded by Mr.
by the Constitution Bench in State of W.B. & Ors v.
whether or not it destroys the basic structure.
Part III and other parts of the Constitution.
constitutionality and the reach of judicial review”.
be termed as violating the federal structure.
person. In Antulay’s case, the five-Judge Bench in R.S.
between Article 142(1) and Article 32 arose.
61. Relying on the aforesaid dictum, it is canvassed by Mr.
the right as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution.
amplitude and are in the nature of supplementary powers.
Court while exercising powers under Article 142.
through a mechanism prescribed in another statute.
equity must yield to law.
must yield to the provisions of law.
68. There can be no doubt that equity cannot override law.
accused to another State after consulting the other State.
the circumstances which find mention under Section 3.
trial, which is of paramount importance for the Rule of Law.
Parliament four times. This is not a normal and usual case.
whose acts created a concavity in the social stream.
Carbide (supra) we may notice that in Mohd. Anis v.
Maharashtra v. Dr. Praful B. Desai55 and Sakshi v.
respondent to any one of the jails suggested by CBI.
such facilities available to him in law.
video conferencing is valid in law.
i.e., free and fair trial.
requires transfer of the criminal proceedings.
fundamentals of trial in the name of fair trial.
this Court to ensure free and fair trial.
not exercising any kind of jurisdiction in equity.
before the learned Acting Chief Justice.
listed for further hearing at 2.00 p.m. on 21st of April 2017.

References: v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.