Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 27 (0.26 seconds)
Sandeep @ Shankar Vasant Khalase vs The Commissioner Of Police Pune City ... on 29 March, 2017
cites
The Arms Act, 1959
Khudiram Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 November, 1974
In a case of
Khudiram Das Vs. The State of West of Bengal and
others (supra) the Apex Court has held that 'grounds'
mean all the basic facts and materials which have been
taking into account by the Detaining Authority in
making out grounds of detention. Thus, merely
mentioning of crime numbers, penal sections, names of
police stations, and the date of arrest and registration of
crime is not sufficient compliance with the
constitutional safeguard of communicating the grounds
of detention. In the instant case, there is violation of
safeguard as provided under Article 22 (5) of the
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:57:08 :::
22 CRI WP 193.2017.odt
Constitution of India. It is apparent that basic facts and
material in relation to the said crimes which have
influenced subjective satisfaction of the Detaining
Authority have not been incorporated in the grounds
served upon the petitioner. Thus, the impugned order
questioning of detention is also vitiated on this ground.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Shri Nasir Ismail Mujavar vs Commissioner Of Police on 14 September, 2012
In a case Shri Nasir Ismail Mujavar Vs.
Commissioner of Police, Mumbai and others
reported in 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 639, (supra) relied
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:57:08 :::
28 CRI WP 193.2017.odt
upon by the learned APP, the Division Bench of this
Court has dealt with issue of delay in considering the
detenue's representation. The same is not relevant for
the grounds raised in the present writ petition.
Suresh Dadarao Kapse vs State Of Maharashtra And Shobha Suresh ... on 11 August, 2003
19. In a case Sou. Chandabai w/o Dadarao Kale Vs
State of Maharashtra and others (Supra) relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Division
Bench of this Court has noticed that the ACP of police
has made endorsement on in-camera statements to the
effect that he has personally verified the same and
satisfied about the position and statement appears to be
true. However, in paragraph no.13 of the judgment, the
Division Bench has observed that there is no remark or
endorsement by the Commissioner of Police anywhere on
these statements to show that he has seen the same. In
this case, the Division Bench has also observed that,
the ACP has not placed any date below said
::: Uploaded on - 31/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 01/04/2017 00:57:07 :::
16 CRI WP 193.2017.odt
endorsements and endorsements are almost identical.
The date on which in camera statements were verified
by calling the witnesses is not apparent.
Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 January, 2012
In a case of Rushikesh Tanaji Bhoite Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others reported in 2012 Cri.L.J.
1334 (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner, the Supreme Court has observed that, order
of detention or grounds not indicating that detaining
authority was aware of bail order, granted in favour of
the detenu in last of offences registered against him and
as such non placing and non consideration of material
vitiated subjective decision of the detaining authority.
The Supreme Court has also observed that other
offences referred to in order of detention also suffers
from remoteness and want of proximity.
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 8 October, 1991
In a case Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik Vs. Union
of India and others reported in (1992) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 1 (supra) relied upon by the learned APP,
the Supreme Court has held that, the detaining
authority's awareness of the fact and existence of
compelling necessity for detention despite the custody of
detenu essential and possibility of detenu's release on
bail and is indulging in prejudicial activity after release
is such a compelling necessity if considered, subjective
satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority on
proper application of mind on the question of compelling
necessity not open for the judicial review.
Ravi Hanumant Thorat vs The State Of Maharashtra on 14 March, 2013
In a case Ravi Hanumant Thorat Vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others reported in 2014 ALL MR
(Cri) 2168, (supra) relied upon by the learned APP, the
Division Bench of this Court has referred Vinod K
Chawla Vs. Union of India and ors (2006) 7 SCC 337
wherein the Supreme Court in paragraph no.8 of the
judgment has made following observations :-