Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh & Anr vs State Of Gujarat on 6 March, 2009
We have considered the submissions made by the counsels appearing for the
parties. As per the law declared by this Court, Section 20A is mandatory
and any violation of the procedure prescribed therein would vitiate the
entire proceedings with respect to the TADA offences. This Court in
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat reported in (2009) 5 SCC
283 released the Appellant therein on bail on the ground that Section 20A
(1) was violated.
Dipak Subhashchandra Mehta vs C.B.I & Anr on 10 February, 2012
Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, we are of the
opinion that the Appellant is entitled to be released on bail only on the
ground that the FIR was registered on 16.07.1993 in violation of the
procedure prescribed under Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act. There is no
dispute about the fact that the Appellant has been in jail for more than 12
years and charges are not framed till date which itself is a ground for
bail. (See: Sanghian Pandian Rajkumar v C.B.I (2014)4 SCALE 74; Bal Krishna
Pandey Alias Vidur V State of U.P. (2003)12SCC186; Dipak Shubhashchandra
Mehta v. CBI, (2012) 4 SCC 134)
Taking note of the above and the fact that the Appellant has been granted
bail by this court in Criminal Appeal No. 1650 of 2011, we grant relief of
bail to the Appellant subject to the following conditions:
Section 3 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 5 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Terrorist And Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 [Entire Act]
Hussein Ghadially @ M.H.G.A.Shaikh & ... vs State Of Gujarat on 18 July, 2014
The principal contention of Mr. Sushil Kumar, learned Senior Counsel,
appearing for the Appellant is that no prior approval of the District
Superintendent of Police was taken under Section 20A (1) of the TADA Act
before recording the FIR. He relied upon the judgments of this Court in
Izharul Haq Abdul Hamid Shaikh v. State of Gujarat (2009) 5 SCC 283,
Ashrafkhan v. State of Gujarat (2012) 11 SCC 606 and Hussein Ghadially v.
State of Gujarat (2014) 8 SCC 425. The Counsel further submitted that the
Appellant is entitled to be released on bail. He further submitted that
the FIR was registered on 16.07.1993 and after a lapse of more than 23
years charges have not been framed till date.