Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing Premsing @ Pallu Jesing Rajput vs State Of Gujarat on 3 March, 1999

Mahesh Mansukhbhai Solanki vs State Of Gujarat on 25 June, 2002

7. It is argued that ld. Single Judge while dealing with the case of Premsing Rajput (supra), was not assisted properly and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Spl.C.A. No. 1681/1992 should have been brought to the notice and had it been done, the finding recorded by the ld. Single Judge in Premsing Rajput's case (supra) could have been otherwise. The petitioner is found involved in the offences punishable under Chapter XVII of IPC.
Gujarat High Court Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - C K Buch - Full Document

Ravindra Kautik Patil vs State Of Gujarat on 15 December, 1999

8. Reliance is placed on decision of this High Court in Special Criminal Application No. 32 of 1980 with Special Criminal Application No. 33 and 37 of 1980 rendered by the Division Bench on 26-3-1980 and it was urged that non explanation of delay should be taken as fatal to the detention. Against this reliance is placed on decision in case of Premsingh @ Pallu Jesing Rajput v. State of Gujarat & Ors. 1999(1) GLH 648, so also in the case of Pradeep Nilkanth Paturkar v. S. Ramamurthi and others AIR 1994 SC 656 and T.A. Abdul Rahman v. State of Kerala AIR 1990 SC 225 to indicate that delay ipso facto will not be fatal to the detention. Delay is required to be explained only where there is gross and inordinate delay and there is a possibility of breaking of the causal connection between the activities alleged of the detenu and the order.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - A L Dave - Full Document

Bhadresh Sundarlal Patel Brother Of ... vs Commissioner Of Police on 19 June, 2002

5. Ld. AGP Mr. Patel has resisted the petition and has submitted that the ratio of the decision in the case of Premsing @ Pallu Jesing Rajput vs. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in 1999(1) GLH P. 648 can be applied to the facts of this case. The detenu is a habitual offender and has committed five offences punishable under Chapter-XVII of IPC. Referring the relevant provisions of sec. 2(c), it is submitted that the activity of the detenu places him in a category of "Dangerous Person" in reference to sub-section 4 of section 3 of the PASA Act. On careful consideration of this decision, it transpires that the detenu in the cited case was found involved in different types of property offences including the offence punishable under sec. 392 and 387 of IPC.
Gujarat High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - C K Buch - Full Document
1