TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Supreme Court invalidates detention order under West Bengal Act, grants habeas corpus petition</h1> The Supreme Court allowed the petition for habeas corpus challenging detention under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The ... - Issues:Petition for habeas corpus under Article 32 of the Constitution of India challenging detention under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970.Analysis:The petitioner sought relief through a petition under Article 32 for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the detention order issued under the West Bengal (Prevention of Violent Activities) Act, 1970. The order of detention was made by the District Magistrate, Murshidabad, on the grounds of preventing the petitioner from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order. The detention order was approved by the State Government after consideration of the report and particulars. The petitioner's representation against the detention was rejected, and the order was confirmed by the State Government. The Advisory Board also supported the detention. The petitioner's petition was resisted by the respondents, and an affidavit was filed in opposition.The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, directed the petitioner's release as one of the grounds for detention was found to be extraneous and did not legally justify the detention order. The grounds of detention provided to the petitioner did not fall under the circumstances outlined in Section 3 of the Act. The Court analyzed the definition of extortion under Section 383 of the Indian Penal Code, emphasizing the requirement of intentionally inducing fear of injury to extort property. As ground No. 1 did not allege intentional fear inducement, it was deemed extraneous. The Court concluded that the presence of an extraneous ground in the detention order rendered it invalid, vitiating the entire order. Consequently, the Supreme Court quashed the order of detention, allowing for the petitioner's release.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
