Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.15 seconds)M. Ramesh Babu, Mahendrakumar And V. ... vs The District Collector, Collectorate, ... on 9 July, 2002
4. A perusal of the Grounds of Detention would reveal that the ground
case came to be registered against the detenu in Cr.No.59 of 2018 for the
offences u/s. 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(B), 25 & 29(1) of Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. Despite the dismissal of bail application
moved on behalf of the detenu in the ground case, a bail application has been
moved on his behalf in the ground case and the same is pending in
Cr.M.P.No.790 of 2018 and the same is pending before the Special Court (for
Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act Cases), Madurai. Though the
detaining authority has made reliance on similar case in which an accused was
granted bail, the facts involved in that case are different. The principle of
similarity cannot be applied mechanically. Normally, bails are granted based
on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case plea,
cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, there is no material to
substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail
and the said order was passed without application of mind. Therefore, we are
of the view that the finding of the Detaining Authority that there is
likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, is nothing but a clear non-
application of mind and the Detaining Authority has not passed the order on
merits ; but passed, based on mere ipse dixit. Hence, on the above ground,
the detention order is liable to be set aside.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1