Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.26 seconds)

Meena Jayendra Thakur vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 22 September, 1999

44. The learned counsel for the DRI submits that in the facts and circumstances of these cases there is absolutely no delay in execution of the detention orders. He refers to the various steps taken to ensure the timely execution of the detention orders. He submits that the failure to mention about the order of detention in the counter affidavit filed in the applications for modification of bail conditions does not cause any prejudice to the detenues. With reference to Vinod K. Chawala v. Union of India (UOI) and Others56, Syed Farooq Mohammad v. Union of India (UOI) and Others57, Meena Jayendra Thakur v. Union of India (UOI) and Others58 and Mukesh Tikaji Bora v. Union of India (UOI) and Others 59 the learned counsel contends that the alleged delay in the execution of the order of detention against the aforesaid Faisal and Abdussameem was not fatal to the detention order in the facts and circumstances of the case. He submits that both the DRI and the State Police had taken steps under Section 7 of the COFEPOSA Act to secure the arrest and detention of the aforesaid persons.
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Smt. Najama W/O Nizamuddin vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. on 6 July, 1995

He refers to the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Smt. Najama v. State of Maharashtra and others 13 to contend that the failure to apprehend the detenue within a reasonable time from the order of detention, and the casual and lethargic manner in which the authorities have attempted to serve the order of detention, shows that there was a complete absence of 112012 (3) KLJ 468 12AIR 1973 SC 1062 131996 (1) Bom.CR 181 W.P.(Crl)Nos.255, 279 & 280/2020 22 reasons to curtail the personal liberty of the detenue through an order of preventive detention under the COFEPOSA Act. He would submit that the live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention had been clearly snapped.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1