Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.38 seconds)Shri D.K. Basu,Ashok K. Johri vs State Of West Bengal,State Of U.P on 18 December, 1996
418 (DB), this Court had set aside the detention order passed against the
detenu stating that the Detaining Authority had not followed the guidelines
prescribed by the Supreme Court, in D.K.Basu Vs. State of W.B, (1997 SCC (Cri)
A.Murugesan vs The Secretary To Government on 12 October, 2009
16.3) In A.Murugesan Vs. Secretary to Government (2010 (1) MLJ (Crl.) 950), it
had been held that, while no bail application had been filed on behalf of the
detenu, before the Court concerned, it would be too early for the detaining
authority to record his satisfaction that the detenu is likely to come out on
bail or that, if he is let to remain at large, he would indulge in such
activities, in future, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public
order. Unless, cogent materials are available, the subjective satisfaction of
the detaining authority would be a clear indication of the non-application of
mind by the detaining authority in the passing of the detention order.
M/S.Sri Balaji Minerals vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 22 December, 2006
16.4) In Balaji Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2010(1) CTC 820), a Division Bench of
this Court, referring to the decisions, in Chandru Vs. The Commissioner of
Police, Thiruchirapalli City, Trichy and another (2007(1) TCJ 766, and
Chelladurai Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009, and
another , had held that the mere statement of the Detaining Authority, that
there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, especially, when
no bail application had been filed on behalf of the detenu, shall not be
sufficient to show that the satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority is
based on cogent materials.
J. Soosai Antony vs The Addl. Director General Of Police, ... on 1 May, 2006
16.5) In Soosai @ Balu Vs. The Secretary to Government [2011(1) MWN (Cr.)
413 (DB)], it had been held as follows:
G. Gowri Shankar vs The Secretary To Government Tamil Nadu, ... on 8 January, 2001
16.6) In Gowri Vs. The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department (2011(2) CTC 145), this Court had held that the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority was without sufficient or
cogent materials, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in
Kalaiselvi,G. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2007(5) CTC 657), wherein, it had
been held as follows:
G.Kalaiselvi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 September, 2007
16.6) In Gowri Vs. The Secretary to Govt. of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department (2011(2) CTC 145), this Court had held that the subjective
satisfaction recorded by the Detaining Authority was without sufficient or
cogent materials, relying on the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, in
Kalaiselvi,G. Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu (2007(5) CTC 657), wherein, it had
been held as follows:
T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasana ... vs State Through Secretary And Another on 16 February, 2006
In such a factual situation, in our considered opinion,
the decision of the Supreme Court in T.V.Saravanan v. State, (2006(2) SCC 664,
is squarely applicable and it can be said that the conclusion of the Detaining
Authority is mere ipse dixit and there is hardly any material in support of
such conclusion. On this score also, the detention order is liable to be
quashed."
R.P. Goyal And Anr. vs The State Of Kerala And Ors. on 15 June, 1973
10. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on
behalf of the respondents had submitted that the Habeas Corpus Petition, filed
on behalf of the detenu, is premature in nature. He had submitted that the
Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed even before the order of detention, passed
by the Detaining Authority, had been considered by the Advisory Board.
Therefore, it is liable to be dismissed. He had relied on the decision of the
Kerala High Court, in R.P.Goyal Vs. State, AIR 1974 Kerala 85 (V 61 C