Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel vs Commissioner Of Police And Anr. on 29 April, 1992

Ashokbhai Jivraj @ Jivabhai Solanki vs Police Commissioner on 1 October, 1999

22. Mr. Dave, in this connection, invited our attention to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel vs. Commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad and another, 1992 (2) GLR 1360. In that case, apart from the cases registered against the detenu, four statements were recorded by the authorities and an order of detention was passed. All the four incidents were independent and separate and in respect of all of them, statements were recorded. In all the four statements, it was alleged that the activities of the detenu affected even tempo of life. The Division Bench considered the statements in paras 16 and 17 of the report and observed :
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 1625 - Full Document

Suleman vs State on 21 March, 2011

AND Shamjibhai Manjibhai Patel Vs. Commissioner of Police, City of Ahmedabad and another [1992(2) GLR 1360] Noormohmad Ismail Shaik Vs. Commissioner of Police, Vadodara and others [1988(1) GLR 356] Sindhi Lohana Ravchand Gopaldas Vs. District Magistrate, Junagadh and others [1989(2) GLR 1106] Chandrakant N. Patel Vs. State of Gujarat and others [1994(1) GLR 761] and Hafijuddin Fazluddin Kazi Vs. Commissioner of Police, Ahmedabad City and another [1992(2) GLR 1332] Learned AGP Mrs.Pathak on the other hand contended that there are sufficient grounds to issue the detention order. Learned AGP has submitted that the detention order was issued after careful consideration of the materials available before the detaining authority. Learned AGP has further submitted that in a given case solitary incident may be sufficient enough to exercise powers of detention, provided such instance, event or incident disturbs public order. Learned AGP submitted that over and above the incident occurred on 1st May 2010, two witnesses also stated that the detenu had indulged in various antisocial activities disturbing public tranquility and public order. Learned AGP submitted that if the F.I.R. is perused, what is alleged against the petitioner is extortion under Section 386 of the Indian Penal Code and the definition of 'dangerous person' includes offence under Chapter XVII of the Indian Penal Code. Learned AGP submitted that both the witnesses are reliable and trustworthy, and there are sufficient material before the detaining authority to issue the detention order.
Gujarat High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - J B Pardiwala - Full Document
1