Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Binod Bihari Mahato vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 October, 1974

Mahabir Flour Mills vs Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And ... on 11 December, 1986

Learned counsel for the respondents, in support of his submission, also placed reliance upon the case of Binod Bihari Mahato v. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1974 SC 2125. This case also is quite distinguishable. This was a case under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (1971) and the order of detention was under challenge. The order of detention was in Hindi (the official language of the State) but there was also an English version of the order of detention.
Patna High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Daya Shankar Kapoor vs Union Of India Etc. on 22 November, 1974

(21) In an unreported judgment of the Supreme Court in Writ Petition Nu.278 of 1974 (Binod Bihari Mahato v. The State of Bihar and others) delivered on 1-10-1974(6), the rule laid down in the case of Kishori Mohan Bera ) was re-affirmed and it was held that if the order of detention purported to be based on the satisfaction of the detaining authority that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order of security of the State, it would clearly be an invalid order. The satisfaction of the detaining authority in such a case would be on disjunctive and not conjunctive grounds and that would mean that the detaining authority was not certain whether it had reached its subjective satisfaction as to the necessity of exercising the power of detention on the ground of danger to public order or danger to the security of the State. If the detaining authority felt that it was necessary to detain the petitioner on the ground that his activities affected or were likely to affect both public order and the security of the State, it would u the conjunctive "and" and not the disjunctive "or" in reciting its satisfaction. Where, however, the disjunctive "or" is used instead of the conjunctive "and", it would mean that the detaining authority was either not certain whether the alleged activities of the petitioner endangered public order or. the security of the State, or it did not seriously apply its mind to the question whether such activities fell under one head or the other and merely reproduced mechanically the language of section 3(l)(a)(ii).
Delhi High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Ms. Dhanam And Another vs District Magistrate And Collector Of ... on 29 August, 1992

The ratio laid down in the abovequoted case is not applicable to the facts of this case as in the abovequoted case in the order of detention the detaining authority has not expressly stated that the alleged activities of the person concerned were such that they endangered or were likely to endanger either the security of the State or Public order or both, and it has been specifically stated that it is with reference to the security of the State or public order or both. It is only in the circumstances it has been observed that the detaining authority was either not certain whether the alleged activities of the petitioner endangered public order or the security of the State, or it did not seriously apply its mind to the question whether such activities fell under one head or the other and merely reproduced mechanically the language of S. 3(1)(a)(ii). That question does not arise here and the ratio laid down in the above decision is not helpful while deciding the issue herein. Thus, in view of the ratio laid down in the decisions of the Apex Court and in view of the fact that the detention order and the grounds of detention were served together to the detenu, the failure to mention in the order of detention about the category of persons to which the detenu belongs, it cannot be said that the detenu is deprived of making effective representation against the detention order and on that ground the order is vitiated. Hence we do not find any merit in the said contention. We also find that the impugned order has been correctly passed strictly in accordance with the procedure and statute and it does not suffer from any infirmity or vires whatsoever so as to warrant any interference in the writ petition. No other point is urged in the writ petition.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

State And Others vs E. Veeramani on 19 October, 1994

26. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent brought to my notice the decision of Allahabad High Court in Dharmanand alias Mahato v. State, 1994 (1) Crimes 397. There the learned Single Judge took the view that the right of an accused to be released on bail if the chargesheet is not filed within the stipulated time continues till the accused is released on his furnishing bail bonds. etc. In default of non-filling of charge sheet by prosecution within the prescribed period the Magistrate should pass an order enlarging the accused on bail, irrespective of the fact whether an application for bail is or is not moved by the accused and should call upon the accused to furnish bail bonds. If the accused is prepared and does furnish bail then he has to be released on bail. If the accused fails to furnish bail bonds, then only he should be remanded under the provisions of Section 309(2) Cr. PC. But if after remand the accused furnishes bail bonds, even after receipt of charge-sheet, then he has to be released from custody because the order of bail survives even after filing of charge-sheet.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

K...................(Name Of The ... vs State Of Punjab; on 24 September, 2013

Mahato v. State of Bihar acquitted the accused of offence under Section 376 IPC, on the ground that accused and prosecutrix lived nearby. Prosecutrix stated that accused met her in bazar, forced her to sit in tempo at point of dagger and took her to a village, where she was raped. There were no injuries on the body or private parts of the prosecutrix. She was not put in physical restraint in the house in village. She had opportunity to run away and could take help of neighbours. It was held that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and accused was acquitted of the offences under Sections 376 and 366 IPC.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - S S Saron - Full Document
1   2 Next