TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Detention Ruled Illegal: Lack of Grounds & Order</h1> <h3>Madhu Limaye Versus The State</h3> The court found that the petitioner's detention was illegal due to violations of Article 22 of the Constitution of India. The court held that merely ... - Issues: Violation of Article 22 of the Constitution of India regarding grounds of arrest and legality of detention. Compliance with Article 22(2) of the Constitution regarding production before the Magistrate and remand to custody.Analysis:Violation of Article 22 - Grounds of Arrest:The petition under Article 226 sought a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the detention of the petitioner, who was the Chairman of All India Socialist Party, without being informed of the grounds for arrest as required by Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The petitioner alleged that he was arrested without a warrant and not informed about the cause of arrest, rendering the detention illegal. The State contended that the petitioner was informed of the sections of the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Indian Penal Code under which he was being arrested, claiming compliance with Article 22(1). However, citing precedents and legal principles, the court held that merely stating the sections of the penal provisions was insufficient to provide the necessary information to the arrested person, emphasizing the need for detailed and intelligible grounds for arrest. The court referenced a similar case from the Allahabad High Court to support its conclusion that informing the arrested person of the specific sections without detailed grounds did not meet the constitutional requirements.Compliance with Article 22(2) - Production before Magistrate and Remand:Another issue raised was the compliance with Article 22(2) regarding the production of the detenu before the Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest and the legality of subsequent detention. The State argued that the detenu was produced before the Magistrate within the stipulated time and remanded to police custody. However, the court noted that the detenu's custody after a certain date lacked a legal order remanding him to custody, as required under Section 344 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Despite the State's assertion that the detenu was in proper legal custody at the time of the hearing due to the filing of a challan, the court emphasized that the legality of detention must be determined at the time of arrest. Consequently, the court found the detention on the day of arrest to be wholly illegal, leading to the petitioner's immediate release.In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed grounds for arrest in compliance with constitutional provisions, and the necessity of legal orders for remand to custody to ensure the legality of detention. The court's decision in favor of the petitioner underscored the fundamental right to liberty and the procedural safeguards enshrined in the Constitution of India.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
