Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.27 seconds)Section 427 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Kamarunnissa Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 September, 1990
The point was gone in detail in Kamarunnissa v. Union of India 1991 (1) SCC 128. The principles were set out as follows : even in the case of a person in custody, a detention order can be validly passed : (1)if the authority passing the order is aware of the fact that he is actually in custody; (2)if he has a reason to believe on the basis of reliable material placed before him (a)that there is a real possibility of his release on bail, and (b)that on being released, he would in all probability indulge in prejudicial activities; and (3)if it is felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. If an order is passed after recording satisfaction in that regard, the order would be valid. In the case at hand the order of detention and grounds of detention show an awareness of custody and/or a possibility of release on bail.
N. Meera Rani vs Government Of Tamil Nadu & Anr on 22 August, 1989
14. ...Subsisting custody of the detenu by itself does not invalidate an order of his preventive detention, and the decision in this regard must depend on the facts of the particular case. Preventive detention being necessary to prevent the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State or to the maintenance of public order or economic stability etc. ordinarily, it is not needed when the detenu is already in custody. The Detaining Authority must show its awareness to the fact of subsisting custody of the detenu and take that factor into account while making the order. if the Detaining Authority is reasonably satisfied with cogent materials that there is likelihood of his release and in view of his antecedent activities which are proximate in point of time, he must be detained in order to prevent him from indulging in such prejudicial activities, the detention order Page 1316 can be validly made. Where the detention order in respect of a person already in custody does not indicate that the detenu was likely to be released on bail, the order would be vitiated [N. Meera Rani v. Govt of T.N. 1989 (4) SCC 418 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 732; Dharmendra Suganchand Chelawat v. Union of India 1990(1) SCC 746 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 249.
Veeramani vs State Of T.N on 4 February, 1994
482 [Veeramani v. State of T.N.]
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal vs Union Of India And Others on 4 April, 1990
[Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. Union of India- 1990(3) SCC 309;
T.P. Moideen Koya vs Government Of Kerala And Ors on 30 September, 2004
In T.P. Moideen Koya's case 2004(8) SCC 106, the statement of law made in para 21 is relevant:
Binod Singh vs District Magistrate Dhanbad Bihar & ... on 26 September, 1986
In Binod Singh v. District Magistrate, 1986 (4) SCC 416 : 1986 SCC (Cri) 106, there were several criminal cases against the detenu including a murder case in which investigation was in progress. At the time when the detention order was pased, the detenu had surrendered in respect of the criminal charge. The detention order was served soon after he surrendered in the murder case.
Rameshwar Shaw vs District Magistrate, Burdwan & Anr on 11 September, 1963
The Court then held that from the affidavit of the District Magistrate it did not appear that either the prospect of the immediate release of the detenu or other factors which could justify the detenu of a person already in custody, were properly considered in the light of the principles laid down in Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate AIR 1964 SC 334 and Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate 1985 (4) SC 232. The principle is that if a Page 1315 person is in custody an there is no imminent possibility of his being released therefrom, the power of the detention should not ordinarily be exercised. There must be cogent material before the authority passing the detention order for inferring that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.