Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.51 seconds)Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
Sushanta Kumar Banik vs The State Of Tripura on 30 September, 2022
In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, the Hon'ble Supreme had
referred to the observations made in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi
Administration reported in (1982) 2 SCC 403 that preventive detention
is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a
man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to
prevent him from doing. On such a reference, it was observed that in
view of the above object of the preventive detention, it becomes very
imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing
authorities to remain vigilant and to keep their eyes skinned but not to
turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the
date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any
indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing
authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn
the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings.
Page 7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 02:35:33 pm )
Ashok Kumar vs Delhi Administration & Ors on 5 May, 1982
In the case of Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura,
reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1333, the Hon'ble Supreme had
referred to the observations made in the case of Ashok Kumar Vs. Delhi
Administration reported in (1982) 2 SCC 403 that preventive detention
is devised to afford protection to society. The object is not to punish a
man for having done something but to intercept before he does it and to
prevent him from doing. On such a reference, it was observed that in
view of the above object of the preventive detention, it becomes very
imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing
authorities to remain vigilant and to keep their eyes skinned but not to
turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the
date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any
indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing
authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn
the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings.
Page 7 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 02:35:33 pm )
Deepak Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 20 May, 2022
In the case of Deepak Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Another reported in (2022) 8 SCC 559, many such principles were
reiterated in the following manner:-
Prahlad Singh Bhati vs N.C.T., Delhi & Anr on 23 March, 2001
In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. State (NCT of
Delhi) [(2001) 4 SCC 280 : 2001 SCC (Cri) 674] , a
two-Judge Bench of this Court stated the principles
which are to be considered while granting bail
which are as follows : (SCC pp. 284-85, para 8)
“8. The jurisdiction to grant bail has to be
exercised on the basis of well-settled principles
having regard to the circumstances of each
case and not in an arbitrary manner. While
granting the bail, the court has to keep in mind
the nature of accusations, the nature of
evidence in support thereof, the severity of the
punishment which conviction will entail, the
character, behaviour, means and standing of
the accused, circumstances which are peculiar
to the accused, reasonable possibility of
securing the presence of the accused at the
trial, reasonable apprehension of the witnesses
Page 11 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 02:35:33 pm )
H.C.P.No.3056 of 2024
being tampered with, the larger interests of the
public or State and similar other
considerations. It has also to be kept in mind
that for the purposes of granting the bail the
legislature has used the words “reasonable
grounds for believing” instead of “the
evidence” which means the court dealing with
the grant of bail can only satisfy it (sic itself)
as to whether there is a genuine case against
the accused and that the prosecution will be
able to produce prima facie evidence in
support of the charge. It is not expected, at this
stage, to have the evidence establishing the
guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.”
Prasanta Kumar Sarkar vs Ashis Chatterjee & Anr on 29 October, 2010
22. As reiterated by the two-Judge Bench of
this Court in Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis
Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri)
765] , it is well-settled that the factors to be borne in
mind while considering an application for bail are:
Ash Mohammad vs Shiv Raj Singh @ Lalla Babu & Anr on 20 September, 2012
23. The decision in Prasanta [(2010) 14 SCC
496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] has been consistently
followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj
Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
1172], Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC
797 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 405], Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527], Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka
[(2017) 5 SCC 406 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 542] and
State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra [(2018) 10
SCC 516 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 325].
The State Of Orissa vs Mahimananda Mishra on 18 September, 2018
23. The decision in Prasanta [(2010) 14 SCC
496 : (2011) 3 SCC (Cri) 765] has been consistently
followed by this Court in Ash Mohammad v. Shiv Raj
Singh [(2012) 9 SCC 446 : (2012) 3 SCC (Cri)
1172], Ranjit Singh v. State of M.P. [(2013) 16 SCC
797 : (2014) 6 SCC (Cri) 405], Neeru Yadav v. State
of U.P. [(2014) 16 SCC 508 : (2015) 3 SCC (Cri)
527], Virupakshappa Gouda v. State of Karnataka
[(2017) 5 SCC 406 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 542] and
State of Orissa v. Mahimananda Mishra [(2018) 10
SCC 516 : (2019) 1 SCC (Cri) 325].
Ram Govind Upadhyay vs Sudarshan Singh & Ors on 18 March, 2002
25. For grant or denial of bail, the “nature of
crime” has a huge relevancy. The key
considerations which govern the grant of bail were
elucidated in the judgment of this Court in Ram
Page 14 of 18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 06/08/2025 02:35:33 pm )
H.C.P.No.3056 of 2024
Govind Upadhyay v. Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3
SCC 598 : 2002 SCC (Cri) 688] , wherein it has
been observed as under : (SCC p. 602, para 4)
“4. Apart from the above, certain other which
may be attributed to be relevant considerations
may also be noticed at this juncture, though
however, the same are only illustrative and not
exhaustive, neither there can be any. The
considerations being: