Back
Kamlesh Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Sadhna Rani (Thakur), J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
2. Law was set into motion with lodging of the first information report on 15.3.2020 by Sri Ashish Kumar, registered as case crime no. 189 of 2020 under Section 147, 148, 149, 307, 302, 506 I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act, police station Kotwali Auraiya, District Auraiya.
3. As per the allegations of the first information report, the petitioner Kamlesh Pathak along with other co accused persons armed with licensee and illegal weapons tried to grab the land of Panchmukhi Hanuman Mandir. When the local people resisted, the present petitioner and his aids started indiscriminate firing due to which Advocate Manjul Chaubey and his sister Sudha Chaubey were killed and three other persons got injured. Earlier also, the petitioner had illegally grabbed the land of Kaleshwar Bhole Baba Dev Kali Mandir and forcibly appointed his younger brother as Mahant of the said temple. On the same day, i.e. on 15.3.2020 the petitioner was arrested and case crime no. 190 of 2020 under section 25 Arms Act and case crime no. 196 of 2020 under sections 147, 14
The detaining authority must be aware of all material circumstances and provide complete information, and there is a constitutional obligation to afford timely representation.
Though no time limit is prescribed for disposal of representation, constitutional imperative is that it must be disposed of as soon as possible.
Point of Law : Preventive detention - Grounds of detention - It is obligatory on part of Government to show by filing a counter affidavit that it had acted promptly in dealing with representation - P....
Quash of detention order - Delay in forwarding the petitioner’s representation on the part of the District Magistrate, and also delay in disposal of the petitioner’s representation
Point of Law : It is, thus, settled that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority has to be based on objective material and any non-existent or misconceived or irrelevant consideration,....
The detention order was quashed due to procedural violations and lack of connection between the detenu's past conduct and the necessity for detention under the National Security Act.
Unexplained delays in addressing a detainee's representation for release render ongoing detention unconstitutional, affirming the necessity for prompt action by authorities.
Detention order - The posting of the provocative message through his Facebook wall, as referred to herein-above, strikes at the root of the State’s authority and is directly connected to ‘public orde....
Detention order quashed - State failed to discharge its obligation in deciding representation expeditiously and moreover Central Government has not decided representation till date which is fatal and....
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
