Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Keshab Narayan Banerjee and anr. Vs. the State of Bihar

Keshab Narayan Banerjee and anr. vs The State of Bihar

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jul 11, 1984
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/656453

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Supreme Court of India
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Criminal Appeal No. 248 of 1984 (Arising out of Spl. Leave Petn. (Crl.) No. 1569 of 1984)
Subject
Criminal

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- LABOUR & SERVICES Recruitment: [R.V. Raveendran & Markandey Katju,JJ] Recruitment of Ex-Servicemen in State Public Works Department - Demobilised Armed Forces Personnel (Reservation of Vacancies in the Himachal State Non-Technical Services) Rules, 1972, Rule 3 - Ex-Servicemen (Reservation of Vacancies in the Hima...

Key legal issue
Criminal

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Keshab Narayan Banerjee and anr.

Respondent

The State of Bihar

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1985SC1666; 1985CriLJ1857

Excerpt

- labour & services recruitment: [r.v. raveendran & markandey katju,jj] recruitment of ex-servicemen in state public works department - demobilised armed forces personnel (reservation of vacancies in the himachal state non-technical services) rules, 1972, rule 3 - ex-servicemen (reservation of vacancies in the himachal pradesh technical services) rules, 1985, rule 2 - reservation for technical posts was introduced w.e.f. 3.5.1983 - ex-servicemen who were appointed against non-reserved technical posts on or after 3.5.1983 were given option to accept subsequently arising reserved vacancies held, technical service and non-technical services are clearly different. persons appointed on or after 3.5.1983 and those appointed prior to 3.5.1983 are not of same class. different yardstick could be applied to them. there is no hostile discrimination. - 1 on bail, namely, that he should furnish security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank in bihar with two sureties residing in the state of bihar each for a like amount appears to be excessively onerous. 25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned special judge.ordere.s. venkataramiah, j.1. special leave granted. mr. goburdhan takes notice on behalf of the state of bihar.2. heard counsel for the parties. the condition imposed by the high court for enlarging keshab narayan banerjee, appellant no. 1 on bail, namely, that he should furnish security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank in bihar with two sureties residing in the state of bihar each for a like amount appears to be excessively onerous. in the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. it is, therefore, ordered that appellant no. 1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned special judge. the learned special judge need not insist that the appellants should produce sureties who are residing in bihar only. the order of the high court shall stand modified accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

E.S. Venkataramiah, J.

1. Special Leave granted. Mr. Goburdhan takes notice on behalf of the State of Bihar.

2. Heard counsel for the parties. The condition imposed by the High Court for enlarging Keshab Narayan Banerjee, appellant No. 1 on bail, namely, that he should furnish security for rupees one lakh in cash or in fixed deposit of any nationalised bank in Bihar with two sureties residing in the State of Bihar each for a like amount appears to be excessively onerous. In the circumstances of this case, it virtually amounts to denial of bail itself. It is, therefore, ordered that appellant No. 1 shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing a bail bond for Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each for the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Special Judge. The learned Special Judge need not insist that the appellants should produce sureties who are residing in Bihar only. The order of the High Court shall stand modified accordingly.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial