The Bench of Justice Mohan Lal has observed that the High Court having the territorial/geographical limits where the offences are allegedly committed has the power/jurisdiction u/s 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure for granting anticipatory bail, and High Court of each State shall exercise its powers within the State without encroaching upon or interfering within the jurisdiction of other High Courts.
The Bench of Justice Javed Iqbal Wani has observed that under Section 195 (1) (b) CrPC, the Magistrate is debarred from taking cognizance of the offence under Section 211 RPC in the absence of a complaint in writing of the Magistrate himself, in that, the offence must have been committed within “in, or in relation to, any proceedings in any court”.
The Division Bench of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh has observed that the basic requirement for claiming the benefit under Article 77-D in relation to a direct recruitee is that the said direct recruitee ought to have been holding a post on substantive basis in the erstwhile Department/ Service at the time of his/ her appointment in the new Department/ Service.
The Division Bench of the High Court of J&K and Ladakh comprising of Justice Ali Mohammad Magrey and Justice Mohd. Akram Chowdhary has observed that in order to acquire ‘temporary’ status, the casual labourer should have been in employment as on the date of commencement of the Scheme and have also rendered a continuous service of at least one year.