Scribd
Upload
329 views3 pages

Gurbaksh Singh V State of Punjab

This landmark case involved an application for anticipatory bail by a Punjab minister and others facing allegations of corruption. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the application. However, the Supreme Court allowed the application, holding that a person's position and status should not preclude them from anticipatory bail consideration if they are not likely to abscond or avoid trial. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning - that considering position/status was illogical and aggravating - to be flawed.

Uploaded by

Rahul Kanth
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
329 views3 pages

Gurbaksh Singh V State of Punjab

This landmark case involved an application for anticipatory bail by a Punjab minister and others facing allegations of corruption. The High Court of Punjab & Haryana dismissed the application. However, the Supreme Court allowed the application, holding that a person's position and status should not preclude them from anticipatory bail consideration if they are not likely to abscond or avoid trial. The Supreme Court found the High Court's reasoning - that considering position/status was illogical and aggravating - to be flawed.

Uploaded by

Rahul Kanth
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Gurbaksh Singh Sibbi Etc vs State of Punjab on April, 1980

 FACTS AND ISSUES:

In this case, the appellant a minister in the govt of Punjab, was facing grave

allegation of corruption against him and others. Application of anticipatory

bail was filed in the high court of Punjab & Haryana under section 438,

praying that the appellants be directed to be released on bail in the event of

their arrest on the aforesaid charges. A full bench of the high court dismissed

the application. The supreme court, however allowed the application.

 PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

The minister had many allegation behalf of that how can he get out of it on

anticipatory bail under article 438. This is the procedural history we can find

in this landmark judgement.

 Issues and holdings:

The issues raised are

1. The appellant’s in the high court trail contended that the appellants,

Mr. Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia and others were men of substance and held

high positions in the Punjab Ministry and were unlikely to abscond or

avoid facing the trail. Thus, they must be granted anticipatory bail.

2. The appellants in their appeal to the supreme court contended that:

 The power conferred by Section 438 of the code on the HC or

Session’s court to grant anticipatory bail is not necessarily

limited to the circumstance as summarised by the full bench.

 The concerned court must have the discretion to grant

anticipatory bail depending upon the circumstance and the facts

of that case.

 The denial of bail amount to deprivation or volition of right to

life and personal liberty. Thus, the courts should lean away from

the imposition of restrictions that are most needed in regard to


the provisions of section 438 when there are no such restrictions

laid down by the legislature in that section.

 SectioSn 438 provides for the procedure of granting of an

anticipatory bail. It is concerned with the rights to life and

personal liberty of an individual who is yet to be found guilty in

the commission of a non bailable offence. Thus, the section and its

provisions must be tested to examine their fairness.

 Reasoning:

The High court full bench rejected the appellant’s contention on the account

of negation of equality in considering the position and the status of the party

or individual while granting an anticipatory bail. According to the full bench,

this contention was illogical and aggravating.

 Evolution:

1. State of U.P v Deoman Upadhyaya

2. Ravi Basnet v State of H.P

3. Ramesh Chand v State of H.P

4. Prakash Gupta v state of delhi

5. Swarna Devi and ors v state of H.P

6. Shashi Kanth v state of H.P

7. Balwanth Singh V state of H.P

8. Raj Kumar v state if H.P

9. Arjun Singh v State of H.P

10. Pawan Kumar v state of H.P

11. Naqveen Kumar v State of H.P

 SYNTHESIS:

1. Maneka Gandhi v Union of India

2. K. N. Joglekar v Emperor

3. Gudikianti Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, High court of A.P

4. The state v Captain Jagjit Singh


5. Balchand Jain v State of M.P

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy