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

B.N.AGARWAL, A.K.MATHUR
S. K. Shukla – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioners:Sunil K. Jain, Ravi Singhal, S. Borthakur, Manish Kumar and Ansar Ahmad Chaudhary, Advocates.
For the Respondent No. 1:Shanti Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, R.K. Singh, Garvesh Kabra and Ms. Savitri Pandey, Advocates.
For the Respondent Nos. 2-4:P.P. Rao and Vijay Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocates, C.D. Singh, Gunratan Pandey, Ms. Kiran Suvarna, Ms. Hena Rizvi, Dr. Indra Pratap Singh, Advocates.
For the Union of India :T.S. Doabia, Sr. Advocate, M.S. Doabia, Hemant Sharma, P. Parmeswaran and Ms. Sushma Suri, Advocates.
For the Respondent in Crl.A.No. 1511/2005:Pradeep Misra, Advocate.

Judgment

A.K. Mathur, J.—All these cases are inter-related and common arguments were raised, therefore, they are disposed of by this common order.

2. Writ Petition Nos. 132-134/2003 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India is directed against the withdrawal of the POTA order by the State Government dated 29th August 2003 against accused Udai Pratap Singh, Raghuraj Pratap Singh @ Raja Bhaiya & Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gapalji. The Union of India was also permitted to be impleaded as a party-respondent.

3. In SLP (Crl) 5609 of 2004, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the POTA Review Committee dated 30.4.2004 under Section 60 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the POTA’). Leave granted.

4. In SLP (Crl) 1521 of 2004, the High Court order dated 24.2.2004 was challenged whereby accused Akshay Pratap Singh @ Gopalji was granted bail in case No.10 of 2003, under Section 3/4 of POTA, Police Station Kunda, District Pratapgarh, U.P. on his furnishing a personal bond for Rs. 1,00,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Special Judge, designated court, Kanpur.

5. T.P (Crl) Nos. 82-84/2004 have be

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