Result of U.P. Higher Judicial Service (Main Written) Examination, 2014 Direct Recruitment to U.P. Higher Judicial Service held on 14th, 15th and 16th November, 2014 has been declared. High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur notified Advertisement for recruitment additional district judges through M.P. Higher Judicial Service (Entry Level) Direct Recruitment for BAR, Exam 2015 Haryana Judicial Services Examination 2014-Pre is conducted on 10th of Jan 2015. The result is awaited. THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI will hold examination for direct recruitment against 14 vacancies to Delhi Higher Judicial Service on Sunday, the 06th April,2014-Last Date 06.02.2014 13/11/2013: While renewing the term of the appointment of the existing incumbents the State Government is required to consider their past performance and conduct in the light of the recommendations made by the District Judges and the District Magistrates. Therefore, the High Court could not have issued a Mandamus for renewal of the term of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and other similarly situated persons and thereby frustrated the provisions of LR Manual and Section 24 Cr.P.C .- SUPREME COURT.
Go Back to High Court Judgements
  Date 11/20/2009 12:00:00 AM
  Court Punjab and Haryana High Court
  Parties Karamjit Singh ..Petitioner.


State of Punjab ..Respondent.

  Appeal Bails - CRM-M 27226 of 2009
  Act Criminal Procdure Code,1973 - Section 438 Cr.PC
  This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short `Cr.P.Cā€™ā€˜) for grant of anticipatory bail in case FIR No.97 dated 22.6.2009 under Sections 341/324/323/427/148/149 IPC in which Section 326 IPC was added later on, at Police Station Ahmedgarh, District Sangrur. In the FIR, the allegation against the petitioner is that he has caused injury to the complainant. Apprehending his arrest, he had filed anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed on 29.7.2009. Initially notice of motion was issued in this case. In response, counsel for the State has appeared and submitted that injury attributed to the petitioner is grievous in nature. He relied upon a report of Dr.Daljinder Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital Malerkotla, who had declared injury No.3 as grievous. To contradict that report, petitioner filed CRM No.56773 of 2009 in order to place on record an order of Assistant Civil Surgeon dated 8.9.2009 whereby the injury declared by Dr.Daljinder Singh on CRM-M 27226 of 2009 -2- 7.7.2009 as grievous, was held to be wrong. The said application was allowed and document (Annexure P-9) was taken on record on 10.11.2009 and the petitioner was directed to join the investigation. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has joined the investigation. This fact is not disputed by the counsel for the State, on instructions received from HC Balwinder Singh. State counsel further submits that report of Dr.Daljinder Singh says that injury No.3, attributed to the petitioner, is grievous. Counsel for the petitioner in this regard has vehemently argued that Assistant Civil Surgeon vide his report has observed that injury No.3 was declared grievous by Dr.Daljinder Singh on 7.7.2009 but the same was not within his jurisdiction as it was the duty of Dr.Mahinder Singh to declare the nature of the injury who had prepared the medicolegal report. After hearing the counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case where there are two contradictory reports about the grievous injury the benefit goes to the accused-petitioner. Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed. Order dated 10.11.2009 is hereby made absolute. The petitioner shall keep on joining the investigation as and when called for. He shall also abide by the provisions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.