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

1986 Supreme(P&H) 184

D.S.TEWATIA, S.S.DEWAN, M.M.PUNCHHI
Sukhdev Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh – Respondent


Judgment

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. This petition for bail speedily climbed the ladder of being heard by a Full Bench. To begin with, when the matter came up before me sitting singly, I referred it to a larger Bench considering it to be of importance needing the powers of the Court to grant bail spelled out in view of the special provisions of bail occurring in the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1985 (hereafter referred to as the Act ). When the matter, under orders of Hon ble the Chief Justice, was placed before a Division Bench consisting of my learned brother D.S. Tewatia J. and myself, we considered that an important question of the interpretation of the provisions of Ss. 3 and 4 of the said Act was involved and thus we referred the case to a Full Bench. It is in this way that the matter has been placed before us. But it has stepped out its parameters as would be seen.

2. The petitioner Sukhdev Singh gives out that he is a Journalist of eminence with more than 20 years of professional career to his credit. He claims to have been associated with leading newspapers/news agencies such as The Indian Press Agency , Blitz , Economic Times and The Daily Tribune . The pet




























































































































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