SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Vs. NABILA
LAWS(SC)-2014-12-35
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on December 09,2014

SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT Appellant
VERSUS
Nabila Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

MIAN ABDUL QAYOOM VS. STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2020-2-46] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD IQBAL KANA VS. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER [LAWS(J&K)-2017-12-52] [REFERRED TO]
HAMID FAROOQ BHAT VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-8-68] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD RAFIQ SHAH VS. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(J&K)-2024-2-13] [REFERRED TO]
UMAIQ MUSHTAQ ZARGAR VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2024-3-3] [REFERRED TO]
VELAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2023-3-41] [REFERRED TO]
TECHI PURU VS. STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(GAU)-2023-6-121] [REFERRED TO]
FEROZ AHMAD PARRAY VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2021-4-51] [REFERRED TO]
GH. MOHAMMAD SHEIKH VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-11-69] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD HUSSAIN VS. COMMISSIONER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(J&K)-2019-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
MAJID GULZAR VS. STATE OF J&K AND OTHERS [LAWS(J&K)-2018-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
KESHAB SARKAR VS. STATE OF TRIPURA [LAWS(TRIP)-2019-2-55] [REFERRED TO]
BHIMSEN TYAGI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-8-40] [REFERRED TO]
GULZAR AHMAD BHAT VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2017-8-76] [REFERRED TO]
KHALID NAZIR WAGAY VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2023-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
SNEHA SINGH VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2021-8-8] [REFERRED TO]
VIANALA SHANTHI VS. STATE OF TELANGANA AND ORS. [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-10-41] [REFERRED TO]
SHAIK SHABBIR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA [LAWS(TLNG)-2020-11-49] [REFERRED TO]
VIKAS NISSAR GANAI VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-5-117] [REFERRED TO]
WASEEM MAQBOOL BHAT VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2023-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
K.KIRAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF TELANGANA REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY [LAWS(APH)-2018-12-35] [REFERRED TO]
AJAZ AHMAD BHAT VS. GOVT. OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2021-7-47] [REFERRED TO]
AQUIB AHMAD REGOO VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2022-12-28] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL KUMAR VS. UNION TERRITORY [LAWS(J&K)-2023-2-91] [REFERRED TO]
YOGESH UDARAM GOKHE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2024-7-17] [REFERRED TO]
SHABIR AHMAD BHAT VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
JAVID AHMAD MIR VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2020-10-47] [REFERRED TO]
FAROOQ AHMAD BHAT VS. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER [LAWS(J&K)-2018-9-1] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD IBRAHIM GUJJAR VS. UNION TERRITORY OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2023-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
FAHEEM SULTAN GOJREE VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
ISHFAQ AMIN BHAT VS. UNION TERRITORY OF JAMMU & KASHMIR [LAWS(J&K)-2021-4-50] [REFERRED TO]
LATIEF AHMAD DAR VS. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER [LAWS(J&K)-2018-8-10] [REFERRED TO]
BASHARAT AHMAD MIR VS. STATE OF J&K AND ANOTHER [LAWS(J&K)-2018-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
SARABJEET SINGH MOKHA VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, JABALPUR [LAWS(SC)-2021-10-91] [REFERRED TO]
SUSAMMA BABY VS. STATE [LAWS(MAD)-2023-4-105] [REFERRED TO]
GOURAV KHAJURIA VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2024-5-8] [REFERRED TO]
PAONAM DIANA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2021-9-41] [REFERRED TO]
DR. HAMEED GANAI VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-114] [REFERRED TO]
RAYEES-UL VS. STATE OF J & K [LAWS(J&K)-2019-7-121] [REFERRED TO]
MUZAMIL YAQOOB BHAT VS. UT OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2022-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD LATEEF DAR VS. STATE OF J&K [LAWS(J&K)-2017-3-71] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)By way of present appeal by special leave, Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order-F) Department, Chennai has assailed the Order dated 26.4.2013 passed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court at Madurai Bench by which order of detention passed by the appellant under Section 3 (1)(a)of the National Security Act 1980 has been quashed.
(3.)The respondent-writ petitioner, being the wife of the detenu, by way of Habeas Corpus Petition before the High Court, challenged the detention order mainly on the ground that the detenu was detained on the solitary ground case and the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining authority to show that either the detenu himself or his relatives have taken any step to file bail application in a solitary ground case. The High Court held that the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real or imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is vitiated in law.


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