Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.54 seconds)The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 3 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
The Narcotic Drugs And Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
S.C. Legal Aid Committee Representrial ... vs Union Of India on 7 October, 1994
It was on this basis that in the case of Supreme Court
Legal Aid Committee Representing Undertrial Prisoners v.
Union of India & Ors. (1994 (6) SCC 731), this Court
considered similar provisions restricting the grant of bail
under Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985
and directed release of undertrials on bail in certain
situations and subject to the terms and conditions set out
there. The Court while doing so observed, (p.748): "........
we have felt that deprivation of the personal liberty
without ensuring speedy trial would also not be in
consonance with the right guaranteed by Article 21. Of
course, some amount of deprivation of personal liberty
cannot be avoided in such cases; but if the period of
deprivation pending trial becomes unduly long, the fairness
assured by Article 21 would receive a jolt. It is because of
this that we have felt that after the accused persons have
suffered imprisonment which is half of the maximum
punishment provided for the offence, any further
deprivation of personal liberty would be violative of
the fundamental right visualized by Article 21, which
has to be telescoped with the right guaranteed by
Article 14 which also promises justness, fairness and
reasonableness in procedural matters."
Section 5 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Kartar Singh vs State Of Punjab on 11 March, 1994
Bearing in mind the nature of the crime and the need to
protect the society and the nation, TADA has prescribed in
Section 20(8) stringent provisions for granting bail. Such
stringent provisions can be justified looking to the nature
of the crime, as was held in Kartar Singh's case (supra), on
the presumption that the trial of the accused will take
place without undue delay. No one can justify gross delay in
disposal of cases when undertrials perforce remain in jail,
giving rise to possible situations that may justify
invocation of Article 21.
1