A. Geetha V/s State of Tamilnadu and Others.

Information Type: Judicial Information
Court: Supreme Court
Date of Judgment(s): 2006-09-04
Case No: 911 of 2006
Case Type: Appeal (Criminal)
Judge Name: Arijit Pasayat & C.K.Thakker
Subject: Criminal Law
Statutes / Acts: Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982
Section: Section 3(1) 3(2)
Bench Strength: Double Bench
Advocate: K.K. Mani (P) & V. Krishnamurthy (R)
State of Appellant(s): Tamilnadu
History of Case No: Orders dated 11.2.2006 in H.C.P. No. 1117/2005 and dated 22.3.2006 in H.C.P. No. 276/2006 of the High Court of Madras
Equal Citation Details :

2006(3)ACR2814(SC), AIR2006SC3053, AIR2006SC3053, 2007(1)ALT(Cri)23, 102(2006)CLT677(SC), JT2006(8)SC389, 2006(4)PLJR201, 2006(9)SCALE6, (2006)7SCC603, [2006]Supp(5)SCR724

Case Note / Description :

Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipse-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. The High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the appellant. [728-g-h; 729-a-d] Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr., [2002] 7 SCC 129, distinguished. Ibrahim Nazeer v. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., JT (2006) 6 SC 228 and Senthamilselvi v. State of T.N. and Anr., [2006] 5 SCC 676, relied on. K.K. Mani for the Appellant. V. Krishnamurthy for the Respondents.

 
 
SignUp For News Letter

Get news and updates from OLIS group, to your email :
Contact Information
Raj Kumar (Ph.D Research Scholar)
Dr. M. Madhusudhan (Supervisor)
DEPARTMENT OF LIBRARY AND INFORMATION SCIENCE
II Floor, Tutorial Building, University of Delhi , Delhi-110 007
Mobile : +91-011-27666656
Email : info@olisindia.in
All Rights Reserved@ University of Delhi, Website Designed and Developed by Raj Kumar(Ph.D Research Scholar)