TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Criticizes High Court Judge, Orders Case Reevaluation in Light of Arnesh Kumar Precedent.</h1> <h3>Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. & Ors. Versus The State of Telangana</h3> Ramachandra Barathi @ Sathish Sharma V.K. & Ors. Versus The State of Telangana - TMI Issues:Challenge to judgment and order of Single JudgeRejection of remand application by Trial JudgeApplication for bail considered and rejectedObservations made in Arnesh Kumar caseHigh Court's approach towards Supreme Court judgmentsQuashing of Division Bench's judgment and ordersAnalysis:The petition challenged the judgment and order of a Single Judge of the High Court, which arose from the rejection of a remand application by the Trial Judge. The Trial Judge had denied remand based on the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The State contested this decision, arguing that the principles from the Arnesh Kumar case were not applicable, while the accused relied on specific observations from the same case, particularly in paragraph 11.4. Following a subsequent order, the application for bail was considered and ultimately rejected, leaving the petitioners with the option to seek regular bail from the High Court.The Supreme Court, after considering the matter, declined to entertain the petition. However, it criticized the High Court's handling of the case, deeming it untenable. The Court emphasized the importance of respecting judgments of the Supreme Court, which are binding under Article 141 of the Constitution. It found the Single Judge's observations in the impugned judgment unwarranted and unsustainable, especially noting discrepancies with the Arnesh Kumar case. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petition, clarifying that conflicting observations would not be treated as binding precedent in the State.Moreover, the Court granted permission for a special leave petition and urged a reevaluation of the case by the Single Judge without influence from the Division Bench's remarks. It also invalidated certain directions issued by the Division Bench, leading to the quashing of its judgment and orders. The Single Judge was instructed to consider the writ petitions filed by the petitioners promptly and in accordance with the law, preferably within four weeks. This request aimed to expedite the proceedings, particularly since the writ petitions were already scheduled for a hearing before the Single Judge. Ultimately, the special leave petition was disposed of, and any pending applications were also resolved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
