SENTHAMILSELVI Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU
LAWS(SC)-2006-6-12
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on June 09,2006

SENTHAMILSELVI Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF TAMIL NADU Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

POWANAMMAL VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH GULATI VS. GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

VRUJLAL NATVARLAL RAYKUNDALIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2007-11-27] [REFERRED TO]
KHOISNAM GUNABAN SINGH VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE IMPHAL WEST DISTRICT [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
SAGOLSHEM ONGBI PINKY DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-8-14] [REFERRED TO]
SAGOLSHEM ONGBI PINKY DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2010-9-17] [REFERRED TO]
VEINEIKIM HAOKIP VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2011-12-3] [RELIED ON]
SHER ALI VS. SUPERINTENDENT DISTRICT JAIL MUZAFFARNAGAR [LAWS(ALL)-2009-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
SHERA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-86] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAT KUMAR NAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(ORI)-2008-8-21] [REFERRED TO]
ELIZEBATH GEORGE VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2008-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
VENKATAPATHI ALIAS VENKAT VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-235] [REFERRED TO]
KADHIR ALIAS RAVI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-99] [REFERRED TO]
KAVITHA VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-130] [REFERRED TO]
N KANCHANA VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-8-241] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA VS. SECRETARY PUBLIC SC DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE SECRETARIAT [LAWS(MAD)-2007-10-368] [REFERRED TO]
SAMSUDEEN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2007-11-80] [REFERRED TO]
RASHID KAPADIA VS. MEDHA GADGIL [LAWS(BOM)-2012-1-108] [REFERRED TO]
MOHD SHAKIL KHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [LAWS(BOM)-2012-4-100] [REFERRED TO]
HARI PANDURANGAN VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-8-551] [REFERRED TO]
ANANTHI VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT FOOD AND CONSUMER PROTECTION DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-106] [REFERRED TO]
MADHU DEVI ASHOK PANCHARIYA VS. UNION OF INDIA JOINT SECRETARY TO THE GOI [LAWS(GJH)-2012-9-173] [REFERRED TO]
GURUMAYUM RAJATKANTA SHARMA @ PROMISE @ GERMAN VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(GAU)-2008-5-48] [REFERRED TO]
KHWAIRAKPAM ONGBI JAMUNA DEVI VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2011-2-68] [REFERRED TO]
MARIAPPAN VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE [LAWS(MAD)-2014-8-87] [REFERRED TO]
SONU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-2010-2-22] [REFERRED TO]
VEINEIKIM HAOKIP VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2011-12-43] [REFERRED TO]
BHOLI SHARMA VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
KALWANTSINGH SATNAMSINGH RAJPUT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-8-211] [REFERRED TO]
REKHA G. MOMIN VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-18] [REFERRED TO]
JOHNY A. MARAK VS. THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
RAHUL AMBADAS JADHAV VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-6-135] [REFERRED TO]
BENHUR M. SANGMA VS. THE STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(MEGH)-2015-7-4] [REFERRED TO]
BHARATBHAI, BHURO DEVRAJBHAIT RATHOD VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2014-7-288] [REFERRED TO]
HEIGRUJAM (N) BEMBEM DEVI VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(GAU)-2012-9-166] [REFERRED TO]
JAGADISH NARAYAN SINGH VS. STATE OF ORISSA AND 3 ORS. [LAWS(ORI)-2008-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM RAI VS. THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. [LAWS(PAT)-2014-7-98] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSINH SAMUNDARSINH SHEKHAVAT VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(GJH)-2016-1-21] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. - (1.)Leave granted.
(2.)The order of detention passed in respect of Ganapathy @ Undakkuli @ Salve Ganapathy (hereinafter referred to as the detenu) was questioned by his mother the appellant by filing a Habeas Corpus Petition before the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
(3.)Mainly three grounds were urged in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. It was submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. Further that the detenu had not filed any application for bail, therefore, the detaining authority had committed error in holding that there was imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Further the detaining authority had relied upon the confessional statement of a co-accused without supplying copy thereof. That denied detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid submissions and dismissed the petition.


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