In the case of Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, V.R. Krishna Iyer, J., sitting as Chamber Judge, enunciated the principles of bail thus: What, then, is “judicial discretion” in this bail context In the elegant words of Benjamin Cardozo: The Judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate […]

Our history has been a constant struggle between the American ideal that we are all created equal and the harsh, ugly reality that racism, nativism, fear, and demonization have long torn us apart. Through the Civil War, the Great Depression, World War, 9/11, through struggle, sacrifice, and setbacks, our “better angels” have always prevailed.


“Bail” remains an undefined term in Code of Criminal Procedure. Nowhere else has the term been statutorily defined. Conceptually, it continues to be understood as a right for assertion of freedom against the State imposing restraints. Since the UN Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, to which India is a signatory, the concept of bail has found a place within the scope of human rights. The dictionary meaning of the expression “bail” denotes a security for appearance of a prisoner for his release. Etymologically, the word is derived from an old French verb “bailer” which means to “give” or “to deliver”, although another view is that its derivation is from the Latin term “baiulare”, meaning “to bear a burden”. Bail is a conditional liberty. Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary (4th Edn., 1971) spells out certain other details.

The Lok Adalat will pass the award with the consent of the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or review the matter again and again, as the award passed by the Lok Adalt shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) of C.P.C. that “no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the Court with he consent of he parties”. The award of the Lok Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the parties, and shall be deemed to be decree of he civil Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the Lok Adalt an under Section 96(3) C.P.C.

Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987—Section 21—Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881—Section 138—decree—Act of 1987 does not make out any such distinction between reference made by civil Court and criminal Court—There is no restriction on power of Lok Adalat to pass award based on compromise arrived at between parties in a case referred by criminal Court under Section 138 of N.I. Act—By virtue of deeming provision it has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil Court—execution petition restored.

Immediately upon the unconditional surrender or total defeat of Japan, the supreme allied commander will exercise supreme authority over the domestic and foreign affairs of the Japanese Empire. Simultaneously, the constitutional powers of the Emperor shall be suspended. All instrumentalities which participate in the formulation or consideration of national policies shall be suspended, pending the achievement of the objectives of military government, and their functions shall be assumed by military government.

This document is intended as a statement of general initial policies relating to Japan after surrender. Following Presidential approval, it will be distributed to appropriate United States departments and agencies for their guidance. It is recognized that this document does not deal with all matters relating to the occupation of Japan requiring policy determinations. Policies upon such matters as are not included or not fully covered herein will be dealt with in subsequent papers.

Joint declaration of the President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty’s Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

Recent Updates