Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.26 seconds)Mallada K. Sri Ram vs The State Of Telangana on 4 April, 2022
i) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decision in i) Kolipaka Swapna v. The
State of Telangana 1; ii) Geetha Mounica v. The State of
Telangana 2; iii) Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana 3; iv)
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana 4; v) Banka Sneha
Sheela v. State of Telangana 5 and vi) Shaik Nazneen v. The State
of Telangana 6.
Banka Sneha Sheela vs The State Of Telangana on 2 August, 2021
i) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decision in i) Kolipaka Swapna v. The
State of Telangana 1; ii) Geetha Mounica v. The State of
Telangana 2; iii) Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana 3; iv)
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana 4; v) Banka Sneha
Sheela v. State of Telangana 5 and vi) Shaik Nazneen v. The State
of Telangana 6.
Shaik Nazneen vs The State Of Telangana on 25 March, 2022
i) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decision in i) Kolipaka Swapna v. The
State of Telangana 1; ii) Geetha Mounica v. The State of
Telangana 2; iii) Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana 3; iv)
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana 4; v) Banka Sneha
Sheela v. State of Telangana 5 and vi) Shaik Nazneen v. The State
of Telangana 6.
Vijay Kumar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 1988
i) He has also placed reliance on the principle laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Vijay Kumar v. Union of India 7; Smt. K.
7
.
Sunila Jain vs Union Of India & Anr on 24 February, 2006
(1988) 2 SCC 57
6
KL,J & SKS,J
W.P. No.16673 of 2023
Aruna Kumari v. Government of Andhra Pradesh 8 and Sunila Jai
v. Union of India 9.
Khaja Bilal Ahmed vs The State Of Telangana on 18 December, 2019
i) In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the decision in i) Kolipaka Swapna v. The
State of Telangana 1; ii) Geetha Mounica v. The State of
Telangana 2; iii) Khaja Bilal Ahmed v. State of Telangana 3; iv)
Mallada K. Sri Ram v. The State of Telangana 4; v) Banka Sneha
Sheela v. State of Telangana 5 and vi) Shaik Nazneen v. The State
of Telangana 6.
P.U. Abdul Rahiman vs Union Of India And Others on 1 November, 1990
17. It is relevant to note that in Sunila Jai9 relied upon by
learned Special Government Pleader, the Apex Court relying on the
principle laid down in M. Ahamedkutty v. Union of India 10 and P.U.
Abdul Rahiman v. Union of India 11 categorically held that
subjective satisfaction of detaining authority and supply of copies to
detaining authority of bail application and order thereon granting bail
10
. 1990 SCC (2) 1
11
. 1991 (2) SCC 274
11
KL,J & SKS,J
W.P. No.16673 of 2023
would depend upon facts and circumstances of each case. If the bail
application contained material facts which detaining authority was
required to take into consideration, then copy thereof must be
furnished to it. If order granting bail containing certain conditions
pursuant to or in furtherance of which detenu may or may not flee
from justice, that may be a relevant consideration for detaining
authority for which bail application and order thereon should be
furnished to detaining authority. But, if application for bail was based
on the ground that the offence complained of was bailable under
provisions of relevant Act and bail was granted on that ground alone,
copy of the application need not be furnished to detaining authority
since whether an offence is bailable or not under a provision of law is
presumed to be known to Court and/or detaining authority. Only
relevant and vital documents are required to be supplied and copy of
the application for bail is not such a vital document. Non-furnishing
of copy of bail application to detaining authority in such case,
especially when copy thereof had been furnished to detenu, could not
be said to have impaired subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority.
Vijay Narain Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 April, 1984
In the light of the principle laid down in the aforesaid
decisions, the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioner, are inapplicable to the facts of the present case.