ABDUL SATTAR ABDUL KADAR SHAIKH Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1990-1-24
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: GUJARAT)
Decided on January 24,1990

Abdul Sattar Abdul Kadar Shaikh Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

PUSHPA VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
WASIUDDIN AHMED VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE ALIGARH U P [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MADAN LAL ANAND VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1990-7-21] [REFERRED]
TRYBA MAREK VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1992-2-38] [REFERRED]
BRIJ MOHAN SHARMA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUTTACK [LAWS(ORI)-1991-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
ASWINI KUMAR MORE AND LILY MORE VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(CAL)-1999-7-27] [REFERRED TO]
SRINIVASAN KANAKARAJ VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1999-8-135] [REFERRED TO]
NIKHIL SHAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1994-6-7] [REFERRED TO]
SUKERTI VIRENDRA SOOD VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-1996-3-85] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPESH MAHESH ZAVERI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD UMAR VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(RAJ)-1991-11-21] [REFERRED TO]
ANKUSH BAMIASINGH INDREKAR VS. C.D. SINGH [LAWS(BOM)-1996-3-92] [REFERRED TO 4.]
AVTAR SINGH ALIAS LATI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1990-5-47] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK MEERAN VS. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-1995-7-110] [REFERRED TO]
RAJAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-1991-10-99] [REFERRED TO]
MALLIKARJUN VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA [LAWS(KAR)-2014-7-128] [REFERRED TO]
P U ABDUL RAHIMAN VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1990-11-18] [REVERSED]
ABDUL SATHAR IBRAHIM MANIK IBRAHIM SHAREEF M MADHAFUSHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1991-10-1] [RELIED ON]
ZAIMAY VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-1990-2-32] [REFERRED 3.]
AIYSHABI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-2005-8-65] [REFERRED TO]
NISSA HASSAN VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2005-9-40] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPESH MAHESH ZAVERI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-9-3] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN SINGH S/O BHANWAR SINGH VS. K.L. VERMA [LAWS(BOM)-1997-10-131] [REFERRED TO]
DEVUBEN GOVINDBHAI VANKER VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SURAT CITY, SURAT [LAWS(GJH)-1993-8-66] [REFERRED TO]
MUKESH VS. VIVEK PHANSALKAR [LAWS(BOM)-2020-4-123] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)This is an application under Art. 32 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of habeas corpus. The petitioner has been detained under Sec. 3(1) of the Gujarat Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act, 1985 by an order of detention dated May 10, 1989 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Surat City. The petitioner earlier had filed a similar Writ Petition No. 302 of 1989 in this Court, which was dismissed on September 29, 1989. The present writ petition is filed for the same relief but on the basis of some grounds which, according to the petitioner, were not urged in that writ petition. The learned Counsel submits that the petitioner is not an enlightened person and is not conversant with his constitutional rights and earlier he was not aware of the existence of some relevant documents namely :
1. Copies of the FIRs pertaining to the offences registered against the petitioner under the Bombay Prohibition Act in the years 1988 and 1989.

2. Copies of the FIR pertaining to the offences registered against the petitioner under Secs. 147, 148, 149, 324, 506(2) Indian Penal Code.

3. Copies of the bail applications filed by the petitioner in the cases registered against him under the Bombay Prohibition Act, and Indian Penal Code and copies of the relevant bail orders whereby the petitioner was released on bail.

(2.)He further submits that these documents were relevant and material and when the petitioner made a request to supply all these documents, the same was rejected and according to the learned Counsel the refusal amounts to violation of the petitioner's rights under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention has to be held as illegal.
(3.)At this juncture, it is necessary to notice some of the annexures to the detention order filed by the Commissioner of Police. It is stated in his affidavit that copies of the FIRs of the offences registered have in fact been supplied to the detenu and that so far as the bail applications the detenu has been furnished the copies of the relevant extracts from the Arrest Register which also show that the petitioner was released on bail in respect of the criminal cases. He further stated that copies of all the documents, which were relied upon, have been supplied along with the grounds.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.