2009 (5) TMI 897

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e Singh. The present petition pertains to the detention orders in respect of Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli. 2. Insofar as Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh are concerned, they had also filed writ petitions challenging their respective detention orders. Those writ petitions were numbered as WP(Crl) 326/2009 and WP(Crl) 384/2009 respectively. Those writ petitions have been disposed of by a judgment delivered by this Court on 06.05.2009. The result of the said writ petitions was that the impugned detention orders therein were set aside and the petitioners therein, namely, Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh, who had been taken into custody pursuant to the detention orders, were directed to be released forthwith. 3. Those petitions as well as the present ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g in Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh are virtually identical. The only difference being that in the cases of Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh they had been served with the detention orders and their writ petitions were filed post-execution. In the present writ petition, however, the detention orders have not been served on Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli for one reason or the other. Consequently, the present petition is at the pre-execution stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.: 2008 (14) Scale 62. In the said decision, the Supreme Court categorically observed as under:- "If a person against whom a prevention detention order ....