Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.33 seconds)Section 392 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Rekha vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 16 June, 2015
8 Thus, in view of the decisions in Nagaraja and
Reddeiah, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the decision in
Rekha's case (supra), is an authority on the extreme
proposition canvassed before us that in cases where no bail
application is pending on the date of passing of the detention
order, detention order cannot be passed "at all" against the
accused, who is already in jail. The judicial review of the
subjective satisfaction reached by the detaining authority,
therefore, will have to be tested on case to case basis; and if
tangible justification is spelt out in the grounds of detention
8 / 26
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2016 00:00:59 :::
jdk 9 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
that even though the accused is already in jail, yet, it is
imminent to issue order of preventive detention qua him, that
would be permissible and legitimate.
T.V. Saravanan @ S.A.R.Prasana ... vs State Through Secretary And Another on 16 February, 2006
13 The next argument of the learned counsel is that,
considering the seriousness of the offence, there was hardly
any scope for grant of bail in the criminal case registered
against the detenu. For that reason, the subjective satisfaction
14 / 26
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2016 00:00:59 :::
jdk 15 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
reached by the detaining authority is vitiated. Reliance is
placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of T. V.
Sravanan @ S. A. R. Prasana Venkatachaariar Chaturvedi vs.
State (2006) 2 SCC 664. This is another shade of the first
argument already considered and rejected hitherto. Be that as
it may, in the former case, the Court noted that the order of
detention itself mentioned that the detenu had moved
application for grant of bail before the Principal Sessions Judge,
which was rejected.
Champion R. Sangma vs State Of Meghalaya on 22 May, 2015
14 Thereafter reliance was placed by Mr. Tripathi on a
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Champion R.
Sangma Vs. State of Meghalaya and Anr. reported in 2015 All
MR (Cri.)3673 (S.C.). This decision also would not be
applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case,
the detention order was quashed in view of the observations
quoted below which appear in para 9 of the Judgment:
Kamarunnissa Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Ors on 14 September, 1990
jdk 17 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
`13. From the catena of decisions referred
to above it seems clear to us that even in
the case of a person in custody a detention
order can validly be passed (1) if the
authority passing the order is aware of the
fact that he is actually in custody; (2) if he
has reason to believe on the basis of
reliable material placed before him (a) that
there is a real possibility of his being
released on bail, and (b) that on being so
released he would in all probability indulge
in prejudicial activity and (3) if it is felt
essential to detain him to prevent him from
so doing. If the authority passes an order
after recording his satisfaction in this
behalf, such an order cannot be struck
down on the ground that the proper course
for the authority was to oppose the bail
and if bail is granted notwithstanding such
opposition, to question it before a higher
court...... It seems to us well settled that
even in a case where a person is in
custody, if the facts and circumstances of
the case so demand resort can be had to
the law of preventive detention. This
seems to be quite clear from the case law
discussed above and there is no need to
17 / 26
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2016 00:00:59 :::
jdk 18 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
refer to the High Court decisions to which
our attention was drawn since they do not
hold otherwise.'"
Huidrom Konungjao Singh vs State Of Manipur & Ors on 17 May, 2012
16 Lastly reliance was placed by Mr. Tripathi, the learned
counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur
and others, reported in (2012) 7 S.C.C. 181 to support the
19 / 26
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2016 00:00:59 :::
jdk 20 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
contention that if a bail application is not moved by the detenu,
resorting to preventive detention, was not permissible. These
observations are made in paragraph 15 of the judgment.
Pramod Ashok Pujari vs The State Of Maharashtra & Anr on 7 August, 2012
18 Before this Court in the case of Pramod Ashok Pujari
Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Anr.; 2012 SCC OnLine
Bom 1136: (2012) 5 AIR Bom R 638, reliance was placed on
the decision in the case of Rekha (supra) to contend that if no
bail application is pending, no detention order can be passed.
Noor Salman Makani vs Union Of India (Jayachandra Reddy,J.) on 27 October, 1993
19 Useful reliance can be placed on the decision of the
Apex Court in the case of Noor Salman Makhani vs. Union of
India, 1994 Cr.L.J. 602. In that case, the grievance of the
detenu was that the detention order as passed, suffered from
non-application of mind because of the bald statement made
by the detaining authority about the possibility of detenu being
likely to be released on bail. The Apex Court rejected that plea
in the facts of that case by observing that nothing more could
have been said in the grounds of detention by the detaining
authority in the context of its subjective satisfaction about the
22 / 26
::: Uploaded on - 04/04/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 05/04/2016 00:00:59 :::
jdk 23 cri.wp.4854.15.j.doc
possibility that the detenu was likely to be released on bail.
Ahamed Nassar vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Ors on 14 October, 1999
22 The Supreme Court in the case of Ahamed Nassar
Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, (1999) 8 SCC 473 has
observed that "Thus inspite of rejection of the bail application
by a court, it is open to the detaining authority to come to his
own satisfaction based on the contents of the bail application
keeping in mind the circumstances that there is likelihood of
the detenu being released on bail. Merely because no bail
application was then pending, is no premise to hold that there
was no likelihood of his being released on bail".