9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 58 - SCH - GSTGrant of pre-arrest Bail - HELD THAT - As the accused-respondents have been granted the privilege of pre-arrest bail by the High Court by the impugned orders, at this stage, we are not inclined to interfere with the same. However, we make it clear that the High Courts while entertaining such request in future, will keep in mind that this Court by order passed in P.V. RAMANA REDDY VERSUS UNION OF INDIA ORS. 2019 (5) TMI 1528 - SUPREME COURT had dismissed the special leave petition filed against the judgment and order of the Telangana High Court in a similar matter, wherein the High Court of Telangana had taken a view contrary to what has been held by the High Court in the present case.
Issues:
1. Clarification needed on divergent views of different High Courts regarding pre-arrest bail. 2. Consideration of past judgments by the Supreme Court. 3. Listing of present matters before a Bench of three Judges. Analysis: 1. The Supreme Court noted the divergent views taken by different High Courts on the matter of pre-arrest bail. The Court decided to clarify the legal position on this issue due to the conflicting opinions. It was mentioned that the accused-respondents had been granted pre-arrest bail by the High Court, and the Supreme Court did not interfere with this decision at that stage. However, a caution was given to the High Courts to consider the Supreme Court's previous order in a similar case where the Telangana High Court's decision was contrary to the one in the present case. 2. The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition (SLP) after hearing the counsel for the petitioner and reviewing the relevant material. The Court decided not to interfere with the matter based on the information presented. The Court also disposed of any pending interlocutory applications related to the case. 3. The Supreme Court directed that the present matters, along with other connected cases, be listed before a Bench of three Judges. This decision indicates the importance and complexity of the legal issues involved in these cases, warranting a more thorough examination by a larger panel of judges to ensure a comprehensive and just resolution.
|
