Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 20 - May 26, 2024

Nominal Index:Ashok Kumar Vs State 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120Abdul Rashid & Ors Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121Rafaqat Ali Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 122Abdul Basit Vs University of Kashmir 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 123Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad Malik 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 124Manzoor Hussain Vs Syed Mohsin Abbas 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 125Owais Naseer Sheikh Vs UT of J&K 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 126Masarat Jan Vs Fayaz Ahmad Parray 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 127Judgments/Orders:Section 313 CrPC Is A Safeguard In The Trial Process, Court Must Present Each Material Circumstance Separately To Accused: J&K High CourtCase Title: Ashok Kumar Vs State.Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 120Reiterated the importance of Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) as a vital safeguard for the accused in a fair trial the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court highlighted the trial court's duty to ensure the accused is informed of all incriminating evidence against them and is provided an opportunity to explain themselves.“The purpose of putting material evidence distinctively and separately to the accused is to enable the accused to tender his explanation and if the incriminating evidence is not put in the manner aforesaid, then it amounts to condemning the accused unheard”, the bench comprising Justice Rajnesh Oswal observed.Detailed Examination & Analysis Of Witness Statements Not Appropriate To Determine Merits Of Bail Application: J&K High CourtCase Title: Abdul Rashid & Ors Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 121The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has ruled that a detailed examination of witness statements is not permissible at the bail stage, especially when the charges involve serious offenses with severe punishments.Rejecting the bail pleas of two men accused in the 2017 killing of two Special Police Officers (SPOs) in Doda district a bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“There may be some contradictions and inconsistencies in their statements made during cross-examination, but it is not open to this Court to minutely examine and analyze their statements at the time of deciding the bail application of the petitioners”.Detaining Authority Not Precluded From Issuing Preventive Detention Order Merely Because Individual Is Already Undergoing Trial: J&K High CourtCase Title: Rafaqat Ali Vs UT of J&KCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 122The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh held that a detaining authority is not precluded from issuing a preventive detention order merely because the individual is already undergoing trial for substantive offenses.Dismissing the habeas corpus petition filed by Rafaqat Ali challenging his preventive detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act) Justice Sanjay Dhar observed,“.. merely because a person is undergoing trial in substantive offences, the detaining authority cannot be debarred from passing an order of preventive detention against him, if it is satisfied that such person is indulging in illicit traffic of drugs”.J&K High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Penalty On Kashmir University For Wrongful Application Of Evaluation StatuteCase Title: Abdul Basit Vs University of KashmirCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 123The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court imposed a penalty of ₹1 lakh on the University of Kashmir for wrongly and arbitrarily applying a statute, forcing a student to reappear for an examination he had already passed.Invoking the Public Law Doctrine a bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani observed,“.. the illegality and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents is manifest and writ large, besides being patently wrongful, undoubtedly constituting a fit case for grant of compensation in favour of the petitioner and the Court being conscious of the fact that there is no quantification based on actual loss, but then the award of damages to the petitioner payable by the Respondent-University is in Public Law”.Concept Of “Necessary Party” In Writ Petition Is Far Broader Than In A Purely Civil Suit: J&K High CourtCase Title: Farooq Ahmad Sheikh Vs Tariq Ahmad MalikCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 124Setting a precedent regarding who can be considered a "necessary party" in writ petitions the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the concept of a necessary party in a writ petition is far broader than in a purely civil suit.Shedding light on a much broader application of Order 1 Rule 10(2) concerning writ petitions a bench of Justices Tashi Rabstan & M A Chowdhary observed,“The Writ Court cannot keep itself confined merely to the litigants appearing before it or on the record available nor will it keep itself confined only to the lis before it, but will also take into account the consequences or the effect which the decision will have or is likely to have on the interests of others who may not be wholly necessary for decision of the issue at hand…Viewed from this angle, the concept of necessary party in a...

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court Weekly Roundup May 20 - May 26, 2024

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags