Back
A. Y. KOGJE, RAJENDRA M. SAREEN
Chandan S/o Karunashankar Dubey – Appellant
Versus
State Of Gujarat – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
A.Y. KOGJE, J.
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed essentially challenging an order of detention passed by the detaining authority Commissioner of Police, Surat City on 14.08.2023 detaining the petitioner as a "Dangerous person" on the basis of two offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned advocate for the petitioner has taken this Court through the contentions of both the FIRs. So far as the first offence is concerned, petitioner is not named in FIR and there is no recovery effected or there is not test identification parade to connect the petitioner to the incident. Therefore, there is no direct evidence. Whereas, in the second offence the registration of which was result of private dispute between two individuals and there is no question of disturbance of publisc order.
2.1 Learned advocate submits that the first offence registered with Udhna Police Station was of the year 2022 and the second offence is of the year 2023 and therefore there is no live link between the two offences.
3. Learned AGP has objected to
The delay in passing the order of detention and failure to consider the option of resorting to cancellation of bail vitiates the detention order.
The detaining authority must act with urgency and provide a satisfactory explanation for any delay in passing a detention order. The registration of FIRs alone cannot establish a nexus with the breac....
The main legal point established is the requirement of a live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention, and the need for prompt action in passing the detenti....
The detention order must be in accordance with the law and based on a genuine threat to public order. The failure to consider alternative measures, such as cancelling bail, and the delay in passing t....
The detention order must have a bearing on 'public order' as required under the Act, and the detaining authority should consider cancellation of bail as an alternative remedy. Additionally, there sho....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the registration of FIRs alone cannot justify invoking power under section 3(2) of the Preventive Detention Act, and the detaining authority m....
The right to make representation is a fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, and the failure to consider the option of resorting to cancellation of bail is crucial i....
Unreasonable delay in passing the detention order, reliance on stale offences, and failure to consider subsequent developments in previous detention orders vitiates the subjective satisfaction of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on proper consideration and that ordinary law is sufficient to prevent a ....
The need for a live link between offences to justify detention as a dangerous person under PASA and the requirement of disturbance to public order in the nature of the offences.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
