Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SANDEEP MEHTAR versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sandeep Mehtar v. State Of U.P. & Others - HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. 25151 of 2003 [2003] RD-AH 291 (22 August 2003)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.32

Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No.25151 of 2003

Sandeep Mehtar vs. State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon'ble K.K. Misra, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble K.K.Misra, J.)

This petition is directed against the order of detention dated 29.1.2003 passed by the District Magistrate, Jhansi under Section 3(2) of the National Security Act, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').

The incident on the basis of which the detention order was passed, had taken place on 5.11.2002 at about 3.30 pm at Kasba Mauranipur at a distance of about one and half kilometer from Police Station Mauranipur, District Jhansi.  FIR was registered on the same day at 16.30 hours as case crime no.532 of 2002, under Sections 452 & 302 IPC, P.S. Mauranipur, District Jhansi.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed this petition on the ground that in para 12 of the writ petition the petitioner has taken plea that no bail application was pending before the Court at the time when the detaining authority has passed the order of detention.  The detaining authority in para 5 of the counter affidavit has stated that a bail application was pending in respect of co-accused, Phool Singh, who was given the main role of shooting and thus, the detaining authority was of the view that if bail is granted to the co-accused then the present petitioner will automatically be released on bail.  He recorded his satisfaction on the basis of the bail application moved by the co-accused.  Since on the date of passing of the detention order, no bail application was pending before any court, the order passed by the detaining authority suffers from the vice of non-application of mind and deserves to be set aside.

The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.  The impugned order of detention dated 29.1.2003 is set aside.  The petitioner shall be set at liberty forthwith unless he is wanted in any other case.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.

22.8.2003

A.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.