Introduction 

Justice Augustine George Masih was born on 12th March 1963 in Ropar, Punjab. He completed most of his education in Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.  

Career 

• Justice Augustine George Masih got enrolled with Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council in 1987. 
• He has held posts of Assistant Advocate General, additional Advocate General and was finally appointed as the Additional Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court on 10th July 2008 followed by Permanent Judgeship on 14th January 2011. 
• Later, he served as the Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court. 
• He took oath as the Judge of the Supreme Court judge on 9th November 2023.  

Notable Judgments 

• Juvenile in Conflict with Law v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2024): 
  • The Court in this case discussed the law on release of a juvenile on bail under Section 12 (1) of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJA). 
  • According to the phraseology of Section 12 (1) a juvenile in conflict with law has to be released on bail with or without surety or placed under the supervision of a probation officer or under the care of a fit person unless proviso is applicable. 
  • Without recording the finding that proviso to Section 12 (1) is applicable to the facts of the case the bail could not have been denied to the child in conflict with the law.    
• Jalaluddin Khan v. Union of India (2024): 
  • The Court held that it is settled law that bail is the rule and jail is an exception. 
  • Even in cases where the relevant statutes provide for stringent conditions for grant of bail the above rule shall apply. 
  • The Court held that denying bail in deserving cases would be violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950 (COI). 
• Chandigarh Housing Board v. Tarsem Lal (2024):  
  • The Court in this case held that for the purpose of extending the benefits of reservation to the community of Scheduled Tribe (ST) the Presidential notification of a tribe or a tribal community under Article 342 of the Constitution of India, 1950 is a sine qua non. 
  • Thus, a person recognized as a ST in one State or Union Territory (U.T.) cannot be recognized as ST in a state where he migrates if no such Presidential notification exists in the said State or U.T.    
• Jitendra Paswan Satya Mitra v. State of Bihar (2024):  
  • The Supreme Court in this case ruled that once a Court concludes that an accused is entitled to bail the implementation of the same cannot be postponed as this will lead to violation of rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, 1950. 
  • The Supreme Court held that the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court is strange and hence requires intervention.
• Abdulmajid Abdulsattar Memon v. State of Gujarat (2024): 
  • The Supreme Court granted bail to a man accused of offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the grounds that charges were not framed against him. 
  • Hence, the Court released him on bail.  
• Kanta v. State of Rajasthan (2023): 
  • The Rajasthan High Court in this case denied application for condonation of delay of 1500 days. 
  • The Court held that in case there is no explanation for day to day delay there has to be a reasonable explanation for the delay occurred with justifiable grounds for not approaching the Court within the stipulated time.