//
archives

Habeas corpus

This tag is associated with 7 posts

Habeas corpus petition – Judicial Custody – Not maintainable – petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial Magistrate -no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner – Instead of applying for bail – came with this Habeas corpus petition – Apex court dismissed the same and directed to petitioner to file bail application before the concerned court = WRIT PETITION (CRL.) NO. 147 OF 2013 SAURABH KUMAR THROUGH HIS FATHER … PETITIONER VERSUS JAILOR, KONEILA JAIL & ANR. … RESPONDENTS = 2014 July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41780

Habeas corpus petition – Judicial Custody – Not maintainable – petitioner is an accused in a criminal case and therefore he is in  judicial custody by virtue of an order passed by the Judicial  Magistrate –no illegal detention as alleged by the petitioner – Instead of applying for bail – came with this Habeas corpus petition … Continue reading

When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only statements of Forest department were recorded but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the galata took place but denied kidnap/forceful taken over the Rajanandini – 14 years minor girl – Habeaus Corpus – modified and Apex court directed for C.B.I enquiry = Alsia Pardhi …. Appellant(s) Versus State of M.P. & Ors. …. Respondent(s) = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41047

When C.B.I. may be directed to enquiry – Kidnap of a minor girl by Forest Officials – only     statements of Forest department were recorded  but not the eye witnesses and general public who protested the Forest Officials while taking minor girl and another woman who escaped from Forest Geep – Forest officials admitted the … Continue reading

“transportation for life” A sentence of transportation for life or imprisonment for life must prima facie be treated as transportation or imprisonment for the whole of the remaining period of the convicted person’s natural life. The petitioner – a life convict has filed this contempt petition against the respondents – the State of West Bengal and its officers for disobeying the order dated 24.11.2010 passed by this Court by not complying with the same within the prescribed period of eight weeks and failure to release him in accordance with the statute. – “The life convict was convicted on 18.01.1990 under Section 302/34 IPC and detained in connection with S.T. No. 01 of June 1989. He was released on parole from Presidency Correctional Home on 29.04.2005 in compliance with Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 279 of 2004. The police authority vehemently opposed the premature release of the life convict on the following grounds: (a) He was a notorious fellow in the area before his conviction. (b) He still maintains relationship with his old associates. 20Page 21 (c) He is within the age of 52 years with sound health. (d) His socio economic condition is not sound. (e) In case of his premature release there is every possibility of his reverting to criminality. (f) During his parole he has been technically serving life imprisonment binding him to refrain from criminal activities for the time being. There is every possibility of his committing further crimes. Considering the above fact, the Review Board did not find any reason to recommend premature release of the life convict now on parole.” It is seen that after careful consideration of all the aspects, the Review Board in its meeting held on 27.01.2011 did not recommend the petitioner for his premature release. The recommendation of the Review Board was placed before the State Government and the State Government accepted the recommendation of the State Sentence Review Board. The decision of the State Government was communicated to the petitioner vide letter No. 790-J dated 09.02.2012. In view of the decision of the State Sentence Review Board, approval by the State Government and the principles enunciated in various decisions of this Court including the decision of the Constitution Bench in Gopal Vinayak Godse’s case (supra), we find no merit in the contempt petition, consequently, the same is dismissed.

Page 1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION (C) No. 363 OF 2011 IN WRIT PETITION (CRL.) No. 279 OF 2004 Life Convict Bengal @ Khoka @ Prasanta Sen …. Petitioner (s) Versus B.K. Srivastava & Ors. …. Alleged Contemnors/ Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) … Continue reading

two months delay in disposal of representation of detenu is illegal and as such the detention order are not correct = an order of detention under Section 3 of the COFEPOSA was served on all the detenus on 10th March, 2011 on whose behalf petitions were filed before the High Court and therefore, their detention under the COFEPOSA commenced on and from 10th March, 2011. In these proceedings, we are not going into the merits of the grounds or the recitals thereof. 4. Before us, the detention of the appellants has been assailed on the question that the representations filed on behalf of the detenus were not disposed of in accordance with the mandate of Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

1 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2136 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. 7953 OF 2011 UMMU SABEENA … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF KERALA & ORS. … RESPONDENTS WITH CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2137 OF 2011 ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRL.) NO. … Continue reading

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES=Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, a state prisoner seeking a writ of habeas corpus from a federal court “must show that the state court’s ruling on the claim being presented in federal court was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. ___, ___ (2011) (slip op., at 13). The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit purported to identify three such grievous errors in the Ohio Supreme Court’s affirmance of respondent Archie Dixon’s murder conviction. Because it is not clear that the Ohio Supreme Court erred at all, much less erred so transparently that no fairminded jurist could agree with that court’s decision, the Sixth Circuit’s judgment must be reversed.

Cite as: 565 U. S. ____ (2011) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES DAVID BOBBY, WARDEN v. ARCHIE DIXON ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT No. 10–1540. Decided November 7, 2011 PER CURIAM. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, … Continue reading

writ of Habeas Corpus = detained him as `goonda’ under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum-Grabbers Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the Karnataka Act”) (Act No. 12 of 1985) for a period of 12 months.= the authority has no constitutional duty to consider the representation made by the detenu before the order of confirmation of the detention order. =On going through the factual details, various materials in the grounds of detention in view of continuous activities of the detenu attracting the provisions of IPC, continuous and habituality in pursuing the same type of offences indulging in committing offences like attempt to murder, dacoity, rioting, assault, damaging public property, provoking the public, attempt to grab the property of members of the public, extortion while settling land dispute, possessing illegal weapons and also of the fact that all the procedures and statutory safeguards have been fully complied with by the Detaining Authority, we agree with the reasoning of the Detaining Authority as approved by the Government and upheld by the High Court.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1814 OF 2011 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3913 of 2011) D.M. Nagaraja …. Appellant(s) Versus The Government of Karnataka & Ors. …. Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T P.Sathasivam,J. 1) Leave granted. 2) The appellant … Continue reading

custody of a child = Mother is accused of murdering his father and her husband. She has a paramour with whom she is now residing. There is no pleading that mother is alone or that she will abode separately from her paramour. If custody of the child is handed over to her then he will be an unwanted intruder in their lives. Her paramour will have no compassion for him nor will he relish his company. Under such circumstances it is remote to conclude that mother will be able to foster the child in a healthy and congenial atmosphere. Not only the lover and beloved are important in this matter but the society around them will also have an impact on the upbringing of the child. It is very doubtful that detenue will have friendship with the adolescents of his age. As observed above quality of home atmosphere and surrounding enviorenment are important aspects to be taken note of. For litigating accused of a murder charge, it will be difficult to rear up the child in an atmosphere required for the said purpose.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 9721 of 2011 Master Shobhit …………………………………………..Petitioner Versus State of U.P. and others …………………………….Respondents Hon. Vinod Prasad, J Manju Sonkar, a widow mother, natural and legal guardian of detenue petitioner Master Shobhit, has approached this court for issuance of a writ of Habeas … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,870,165 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,904 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com