TMI Blog2009 (5) TMI 897X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pertains to the detention orders in respect of Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli. 2. Insofar as Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh are concerned, they had also filed writ petitions challenging their respective detention orders. Those writ petitions were numbered as WP(Crl) 326/2009 and WP(Crl) 384/2009 respectively. Those writ petitions have been disposed of by a judgment delivered by this Court on 06.05.2009. The result of the said writ petitions was that the impugned detention orders therein were set aside and the petitioners therein, namely, Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh, who had been taken into custody pursuant to the detention orders, were directed to be released forthwith. 3. Those petitions as well as the present writ petitions pertain to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... identical. The only difference being that in the cases of Rajesh Sharma and Nafe Singh they had been served with the detention orders and their writ petitions were filed post-execution. In the present writ petition, however, the detention orders have not been served on Diwakar Gupta and Amit Kohli for one reason or the other. Consequently, the present petition is at the pre-execution stage. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Deepak Bajaj v. State of Maharashtra and Anr.: 2008 (14) Scale 62. In the said decision, the Supreme Court categorically observed as under:- If a person against whom a prevention detention order has been passed can show to the Court that the sa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een placed on record. Subsequently, the petitioners had placed copies of the detention orders on record. The learned Additional Solicitor General had raised an objection as to how the petitioners came upon such detention orders when they had not yet been served with the same. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2009, Mr Tulsi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that there would be no difficulty in explaining the circumstances under which the petitioners obtained copies of the detention orders and that an affidavit to the same effect would be filed. We find that an affidavit has been filed and it gives some kind of an explanation. We are not commenting upon the explanation given in the said aff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
