<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>1990 (1) TMI 316 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192278</link>
    <description>Article 22(5) requires that a detenu be supplied the grounds of detention and the material relied on, so as to enable an effective representation. Documents only casually referred to need not be furnished unless their absence actually handicaps that right. On the facts, the detenu had received the grounds, relied-on material, and disclosure of the complaints and crime details; the record also showed that FIR copies were supplied, and the bail applications and orders were already within the detenu&#039;s knowledge. The non-supply of the requested documents therefore did not infringe Article 22(5), and the detention was not invalid on that ground.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 May 2017 13:19:01 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=469534" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>1990 (1) TMI 316 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192278</link>
      <description>Article 22(5) requires that a detenu be supplied the grounds of detention and the material relied on, so as to enable an effective representation. Documents only casually referred to need not be furnished unless their absence actually handicaps that right. On the facts, the detenu had received the grounds, relied-on material, and disclosure of the complaints and crime details; the record also showed that FIR copies were supplied, and the bail applications and orders were already within the detenu&#039;s knowledge. The non-supply of the requested documents therefore did not infringe Article 22(5), and the detention was not invalid on that ground.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 24 Jan 1990 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=192278</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>