Back
C. V. KARTHIKEYAN
Megala – Appellant
Versus
State Represented by Deputy Director Directorate of Enforcement Chennai – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition for habeas corpus. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. judicial considerations and recusal. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. divergent conclusions by justices. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. rights and legal obligations in custody. (Para 9 , 97) |
| 5. submission to a third judge due to split opinion. (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. discussion on referral process and remand validity. (Para 13 , 21 , 22) |
| 7. supreme court observations on systemic corruption. (Para 38 , 39) |
| 8. concept of bribery in public service appointments. (Para 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. investigative powers under the pmla. (Para 106 , 109 , 119) |
| 10. conditions for custody and implications of hospitalization. (Para 192 , 200 , 201) |
| 11. maintenance of order and judicial discretion in remand. (Para 208 , 209 , 210) |
| 12. final judgment and next steps. (Para 217 , 218 , 219) |
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a direction to the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue by name Mr. Senthil Balaji, S/o. Velusamy, aged about 48 years, before this Court and set him at liberty.)
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by Mrs. Megala, a lady in distress consequent to arrest of her husband V.Senthil Balaji, who
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
