Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The petitioner claimed to be the Prime Minister of a trans-national government of Tamil Eelam and the impact of allowing such a person to intervene in UAPA proceedings, not being a member of the LTTE or an office bearer of the LTTE, is far reaching.
Mere presence of the antecedents will not lead to a presumption about the active involvement of the accused in any activity, without any material proof in support.
There is a reasonable possibility that the appellant was one of the links in the network of people who were cognizant of the plan to trigger terrorist activity by using such bombs and explosives and causing loss of life.
The Govt. of India had imposed a ban of PFI declaring it an unlawful organisation under the UAPA. The Notification banning the organisation was given ‘immediate effect’, which was then challenged before the High Court
Delhi High Court: In a petition filed by Ehtesham Qutubuddin Siddiqui (‘petitioner’), who is a death row convict in 7/11 Mumbai train
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Sanjay Dhar, J. dismissed a petition which was filed challenging FIR registered under Sections 153,
Gauhati High Court: The single Bench of Ajit Borthakur, J., has under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, granted bail
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court: Stating that, the intention of a person can be gathered from the words spoken or
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Anupinder Singh Grewal, J., granted bail to the woman who was in custody along with her barely
by Kapil Madan † and Pulkit Pandey††
Supreme Court: After granting bail to a 74-year-old arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, as after the charge-sheets came to