Search Results for "dangerous activities"

759 result(s) found

Scroll Down To Discover

Found 759 result(s)

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Gujarat High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order for Lack of Material on Public Order Disturbance. Detention under Gujarat Prevention of Anti-social Activities Act, 1985 set aside as mere registration of FIRs does not establish threat to public order.

The petitioner, Jaysukhkumar @ Jaysukh @ Jasho S/o Kishanlal @ Kishanbhai Solanki, was preventively detained by an order dated 08.02.2026 passed by th...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPD Act for Non-Application of Mind Regarding Likelihood of Bail. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Authority Failed to Assess Real Possibility of Bail in Pending Cases, Violating Kamarunnisa Principle.

The petitioner, Sagar @ Manish Shailesh Belamkar, challenged a detention order dated 30 April 2025 passed by the District Magistrate, Solapur under Se...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind and Mechanical Recital of Grounds. Detenu's Right to Make Effective Representation Violated as Relevant Material Not Considered.

The petitioner, Rupesh Laxman Gaikwad, was detained under Section 3(2) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind. Preventive Detention Order Set Aside as Mechanical Reproduction of Police Report Without Independent Satisfaction by District Magistrate.

The petitioner, Anant Manikrao Kachale, an agriculturist from Vaitagwadi, Parbhani, challenged his preventive detention order dated 24-08-2017 passed ...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Quashes Detention Order Under MPDA Act for Non-Application of Mind — Petitioner in Judicial Custody at Time of Order. Court held that detaining authority failed to demonstrate compelling reasons or imminent possibility of bail, rendering detention order illegal.

The petitioner, Fazal Sikandar Patel, challenged a detention order dated 26.08.2013 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Aurangabad under Section 3(1...

© Image Copyrights Juris Services & Technology

Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Alleged Maoist Members in UAP Act Case — Insufficient Evidence of Terrorist Activity. Mere Membership of Banned Organization Without Active Participation Does Not Attract Stringent Bail Restrictions Under Section 43D(5) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

The judgment concerns two bail applications filed by Jyoti Babasaheb Chorge (Accused No.4) and Sushma Hemant Ramtekke (Accused No.2) in Sessions Case ...