Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 51 (0.40 seconds)Abhayraj Gupta vs Superintendent,Central Jail on 23 December, 2021
24. The next argument, which the petitioner's counsel had made was that action which was taken under the National Security Act was stale one. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied upon a judgment of this Court in Abhayraj Gupta vs. Superintendent, Central Jail, Bareilly : 2022 (1) ADJ 451 and has submitted that there was absolutely no live link between the event which occurred on 10.08.2023 and the detention order which was passed on 03.12.2023.
Section 120B in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs State Of Bihar And Others on 7 September, 1965
20. The Judgment of the Supreme Court in Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia vs. State of Bihar reported in AIR 1966 SC 740 has held that public order was set to embrace more of the community than just the law and order of the area. Public order is an even tempo of the life of a community taking the country as a whole or even a specific locality. Disturbance of public order is to be distinguished from the acts directed against the individuals which do not disturb the society to the extent of causing a general disturbance of public tranquility. In that judgment, it has been stated that degree of disturbance and its effect upon the life of the community in a locality determines whether the disturbance amounts only to a breach of law and order or whether there was a problem of maintenance of public order. In the instant case, we find that the event of murdering of Anuj Chaudhary had happened on 10.08.2023; the case was registered as Case Crime No. 598 of 2023 under Section 302/307 of IPC and only Amit Kumar, Pushpendra, Aniket and Prabhaker were the named assailants. The F.I.R. had further mentioned about certain unknown assailants. The petitioner, however, was involved only when the brother-in-law of the deceased had mentioned the name of the petitioner in a letter written to the Superintendent of Police on 29.08.2023 and thereafter the petitioner was arrested on 01.11.2023 and that too in a conspiratorial role. Further we find that under the Arms Act, the crime of which was numbered as Case Crime No. 818 of 2023, the petitioner was jailed on 07.11.2023 and with regard to the Gangster's Act, the petitioner's arrest took place on 28.11.2023. The grounds of detention have only mentioned that the petitioner's relatives, after the arrest of the petitioner in Case Crime No. 598 of 2023 on 01.11.2023, had moved a bail application on 04.11.2023. No ground in the "Grounds of Detention" has been mentioned that any bail was moved with regard to the Arms Act and the Gangsters Act. It may be mentioned over here that the bail in the Gangsters Act cannot be obtained without a service of notice on the Public Prosecutor and without the Court being satisfied that the accused would be on the culmination of trial, acquitted.
Rajammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Another on 14 December, 1998
Paragraph No.11 of the judgment Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another (supra) is being reproduced herein as under:-
Section 307 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 302 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Alijan Mian And Another vs District Magistrate, Dhanbad on 13 September, 1983
As has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner, the judgments of Ali Jaan Miyan vs. District Magistrate, Dhanbad : (1983) 4 SCC 301 ; Jagan Nath Biswas vs. State of West Bengal : (1975) 4 SCC 115 ; Mohd. Sahabuddin vs. District Magistrate, 24 Parganas : (1975) 4 SCC 114 and Shalini Soni vs. Union of India : (1980) 4 SCC Page 544 become relevant for the decision of this issue.
A. K. Roy, Etc vs Union Of India And Anr on 28 December, 1981
23. Still further, we are of the view that when the State had taken the legal help of Law Officers then as per the case of Najar Quraishi vs. Superintendent & Ors. (Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.3293 of 2018 decided on 19.9.2018) which relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in A.K. Roy vs. Union of India : (1982) 1 SCC 271 and Choith Nanikram Harchandani vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : 2018 2 SCC (Crl.) 403, the petitioner ought to have compulsorily been given the legal assistance, specially when the petitioner in his representation had asked for one. This having not been done, we are of the view that the detention order becomes unsustainable in the eyes of law.
Choith Nanikram Harchandani vs State Of Maharashtra . on 20 November, 2015
Therefore learned counsel submitted that when the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to have legal assistance and the State had then as per the law laid down by the Supreme Court, the detention becomes illegal.