Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)Kerala Police Act, 2011
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Anita Antony vs State Of Kerala on 10 June, 2022
Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (4) KHC 427]
Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517]
Stenny Aleyamma Saju vs State Of Kerala And Others on 12 August, 2011
Anita Antony v. State of Kerala and Others [2022 (4) KHC 427]
Stenny Aleyamma Saju v. State of Kerala and Others [2017 (3) KHC 517]
The Explosive Substances Act, 1908
Reshma Raj vs State Of Kerala on 27 January, 2014
It was also argued that, in an unusual way, the
copy of the confirmation order was addressed to the Chief Minister of the
State. The case of the petitioners is that the detenue acted against the
present leadership of the Communist party and that resulted in invoking
proceedings under the KAA(P)A. it was also argued that there was a long
delay in passing the order after the last prejudicial activity. The
learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the following judgments.
Reshma Raj v. State of Kerala and Others [2014 KHC 3304]
Shajitha Suneer v. State of Kerala and Others [2019 (3) KHC 453]
Sreeja Jayaprakash v. District Collector/District Magistrate and Others
[2019 KHC 2814]
Sreeja Jayaprakash vs The District Collector/District ... on 9 October, 2018
The balancing exercise has to be
WP(CRL.) NOS. 512/2023 & 515 OF 2023
-:7:-
weighed on the scale of societal interest and liberty of the detenue, and
not on the scale of bail condition and the liberty of the individual
detenue. A co-ordinate bench has taken a similar view in Sreeja
Jayaprakash's case (supra) that the failure on the part of the detaining
authority in considering bail condition is fatal. It may be fatal in
taking note of the nature of the crime committed and nature of the last
prejudicial activity, but it cannot be said that it is a rule. If the
detaining authority had adverted to the bail granted and crime in which
the detenue are involvled, that would be sufficient, provided the
activity of the detenue continues to be a threat in the larger interest
of the society. It is the activity of the detenue in relation to the
larger public interest that had to be weighed and not the bail condition
and the order of detention. We will be missing to secure the very
objective of the detention law, if we analyse the detention order from
the perspective of bail conditions imposed while granting bail to the
detenue. Each detention order has to be considered based on the facts
involved in that case and the application of precedent will have to be
limited based on the facts of such cases.
1