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

2022 MarsdenLR 840

HIGH COURT MALAYA IPOH
POOVANESWARAN RAVE – Appellant
Versus
PP – Respondent


Petitioner Advocates:Sakhtivel Nagalingam ,Respondent Advocate: Evangelin Simon Silvaraj

JUDGMENT

Su Tiang Joo JC:

Introduction

[1] By way of Notice of Motion (encl 1) the Applicant prays for an order that:

i) he be discharged and acquitted ("dilepaskan dan dibebaskan") from detention;

ii) that he be granted bail for the charge brought against him pursuant to s 26J of the Anti-Trafficking In Persons And Anti-Smuggling Of Migrants Act 2007 Act 670 ("ATIPSOM");

iii) damages be assessed for his detention;

iv) such further or other relief as this Honourable Court may seem fit and just.

[2] On 11 November 2022, I had allowed a writ of habeas corpus to be issued for the Applicant to be released, and these are the grounds for the decision made.

Nature Of Application - Writ Of Habeas Corpus

[3] In the intitulement of the Notice of Motion, the Applicant made reference which in effect meant that he is giving notice that he is relying upon s 26J ATIPSOM, art 5 (2) of the Federal Constitution , ss 365 to 367 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Revised 1999) ("CPC") and O 92 (4) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC").

[4] Section 26J ATIPSOM provides that:

"Any person being the owner, operator or master of any conveyance who engages in the conveyance of smuggled migrants commits an offence and shall, o


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