Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 340 (0.99 seconds)
Documents citing Union Of India (Uoi) vs Paul Manickam And Anr. on 13 October, 2003

Mrs. Laishram (Ongbi) Hemabati vs The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... on 9 February, 2021

safeguards have been observed by the District Magistrate while passing the order of detention. On perusal of the order of detention, it is clearly seen that it is nowhere mentioned therein that the District Magistrate was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and only in the grounds of detention, it was mentioned about it. However, there are no materials on record to show that at the time when the order of detention was passed by the District Magistrate, a bail application moved by the detenu pertaining to the present case, was pending before the appropriate Court and that a copy thereof was placed before her by the sponsoring authority nor has any co-accused been released on bail. The grant of bail would have been possible only when a bail application had been filed by or on behalf of the detenu. It is not so in the present case. The District Magistrate, in her affidavit filed before this Court, did not say anything about the materials on the basis of which she was satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail and therefore, it is absolutely clear that the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. Paul Manickam (supra) have not been followed by the District Magistrate. The District Magistrate appears to have not applied her judicious mind while passing the order of detention which is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Considering the materials on record and having heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties, we are of the view that the order of detention is bad in law and is liable to be quashed and set aside.
Manipur High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K N Singh - Full Document

Dheeru Singh vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2022

"26. It was held in Union of India v. Paul Manickam [(2003) 8 SCC 342: 2004 SCC (Cri) 239] that if the detaining authority is aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody and the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent material that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities he must be detained to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can validly be made."
Telangana High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P N Rao - Full Document

8 vs The District Magistrate on 7 December, 2020

In the case of Paul Manickam (supra), it has been held that "14 ... where detention orders are passed in relation to persons who are already in jail under some other laws, the detaining authorities should apply their mind and show their awareness in this regard in the grounds of detention, the chances of release of such persons on bail. The necessity of keeping such persons in detention under the preventive detention laws has to be clearly indicated. Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or economic stability, etc. Ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody. The detaining authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. If the detaining authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated W.P. (Cril.) No. 3 of 2020 Contd.../-
Manipur High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - K N Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next