SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

A.M.AHMADI, B.L.HANSARIA, SUHAS C.SEN
Anirudhsinhji Karansinhji Jadeja – Appellant
Versus
State of Gujarat – Respondent


JUDGMENT

B.L. Hansaria, J. - The two appellants are in jail being accused of having committed offences, inter alia under Sections 3 and 5 of the Terrorists and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (for short 'the TADA'). Their prayer is to release them on bail, which has been denied by the Designated Court. In support of this plea, a large number of points were raised before us in course of arguments. It is not necessary to go into all these questions as, according to us, the appeal deserves to be allowed on the sole ground of wrong invocation of TADA in the case of the appellants.

2. To bring home the above, we may note the prosecution case in short, which is that:

"….on March 15, 1995 one Jayantilal Mohanlal Vadodria who is a son of elder brother Mohanlal Kalabhai of the complainant, was murdered by some assailants near Ashapura Dam at the distance of 3 K.M. from Gondal town. So on receiving this information, the complainant went to the scene of offence where a dead body of his nephew Jayantilal was lying. One Vespa-scooter of the deceased was also lying there: It was found that there were injury marks by fire on the body of the deceased. There was a cartridge of red colo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top