Karnataka HC To District Court Do Not Defer Hearing Bail Applications On Ground That It Is Not A Case Of Extreme Urgency [Read Order]

May 26, 2021 0 Comments

first_imgNews UpdatesKarnataka HC To District Court Do Not Defer Hearing Bail Applications On Ground That It Is Not A Case Of Extreme Urgency [Read Order] Mustafa Plumber11 May 2020 4:33 AMShare This – xThe Karnataka High Court has said trial court cannot defer hearing of bail application stating that it is not a case of extreme urgency without going into the merits of the matter. Justice Mohammad Nawaz said “The Consideration of application to be enlarged on bail in accordance with law is a right that can be encapsulated in the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution…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 has said trial court cannot defer hearing of bail application stating that it is not a case of extreme urgency without going into the merits of the matter. Justice Mohammad Nawaz said “The Consideration of application to be enlarged on bail in accordance with law is a right that can be encapsulated in the Right to Life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” Accused Iliyaz Khan was arrested on April 4, during the ongoing lockdown period, under sections offences punishable under Sections 341, 353, 504 r/w Section 34 of IPC. He has been in custody for over a month and is lodged in the prison. After filing for bail before the district court he submitted that necessary report to the Principal District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District on 07.04.2020 as well as on 13.04.2020 to ensure that the petition be taken up on priority. However, the district judge has refused to order that the bail petition be taken up for consideration stating that it is not a case of ‘extreme urgency’. Advocate Sunil S. Rao, appearing for the accused in the high court argued that petitioner has been in custody for about a month the offence under Section 341 of I.P.C. is punishable for imprisonment for one month. There could not be deferment of consideration of bail petition for any reason and appropriate arrangements ought to be made to take up the bail petition. The court said “Once bail petition has been filed, as petition involves the question of life in all its expanseful connotations and liberty of the petitioner, it is appropriate to take up the petition and consider it in accordance with law in an expeditious manner. Without commenting as regards to the merits of the matter, it cannot be stated that though the petitioner seeks for enlarging him on bail, petitioner is seeking to move a matter which does not involve any extreme urgency and hence, the consideration of application for bail could be deferred. Such a pedantic approach is not acceptable when considering the application filed seeking to be enlarged on bail.” The court accordingly directed the concerned Court to take up the petition seeking enlargement of bail and to dispose of the said petition within a period of seven days.Click Here To Download Order[Read Order] Next Storylast_img read more

Not Even A Single Person From Vulnerable Categories Should Be Left Out Of Either National Food Security Act Or SFSS: Orissa High Court

May 26, 2021 0 Comments

first_imgNews UpdatesNot Even A Single Person From Vulnerable Categories Should Be Left Out Of Either National Food Security Act Or SFSS: Orissa High Court Sparsh Upadhyay17 April 2021 8:42 AMShare This – xThere cannot be any persons belonging to vulnerable categories in Odisha who are left out of either the NFSA (National Food Security Act) or the SFSS (State Food Security Scheme). A constant endeavor must be made to increase the coverage with every passing month: Orissa HCExpressing dissatisfaction with the State Government’s submission that that it has already covered 80% of the population under the targeted public distribution system (PDS), the Orissa High Court this week observed, “There cannot be any persons belonging to vulnerable categories in Odisha who are left out of either the NFSA (National Food Security Act) or the SFSS (State Food…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?LoginExpressing dissatisfaction with the State Government’s submission that that it has already covered 80% of the population under the targeted public distribution system (PDS), the Orissa High Court this week observed, “There cannot be any persons belonging to vulnerable categories in Odisha who are left out of either the NFSA (National Food Security Act) or the SFSS (State Food Security Scheme). A constant endeavor must be made to increase the coverage with every passing month.” Importantly, the division bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice B. P. Routray said, “It is not sufficient to state that the government has already covered 80 pc of the population under the PDS.” The matter before the Court The Court was hearing the plea of a social activist, Prafulla Samantara’s who sought special intervention by way of food security measures and foodgrains to non-ration cardholders in view of Covid-19 pandemic. The State Government submitted before the Court that the Government of Odisha had introduced its own State Food Security Scheme (SFSS) from October 2018 onwards to cover the left out eligible non-cardholders, who were earlier outside the ambit of the NFSA (National Food Security Act). It was also stated that as on 9th October 2020, 3, 53,000 such families comprising of 11,10,007 members having no ration card, were issued ration cards as well as food grain entitlements under the SFSS. In was further submitted that between October 2020, and March 2021, the actual number of persons covered under the SFSS had increased by 56,000 and it was also informed that a large number of people were still left out from the ambit of either the NFSA or the SFSS. Court’s observations At the outset, the Court observed that it was not clear whether among those who continued to remain left out from either the NFSA or the SFSS there are any belonging to the BPL and other vulnerable categories. Referring to the directions of the Supreme Court in PUCL v. Union of India, the Court observed, “No BPL person and no person belonging to any vulnerable group should be left out from the ambit of a State-sponsored food security scheme. It is therefore essential for the State of Odisha to ensure that there are mechanisms put in place even under the SFSS which is supposed to cover the gap under the NFSA, so that no BPL or vulnerable group person is left out.” Consequently, the Court directed the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, F.S. and C.W. Department, Government of Odisha to inform the Court by an affidavit:- Whether those belonging to BPL and other vulnerable groups have been specifically targeted and included under the SFSS irrespective of whether they are located in an urban or a rural area, and,Whether each such person has a ration card or other documents which enables such person to approach a fair price shop or any other distribution centers to avail the rations. The affidavit has been directed to be filed on or before 17th May, 2021 and the matter has been posted for further hearing on 20th May. Case title – Prafulla Samantara v. State of Odisha [W.P.(C) No.16579 of 2020] Click Here To Download OrderRead Order Next Storylast_img read more