![]() Tuesday, Apr 08, 2003 |
| National | ||
|
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary | National
By Our Legal Correspondent
A Bench, comprising Justice K.G. Balakrishnan and Justice P. Venkatarama Reddy, issued notice on the petition after hearing the Additional Solicitor-General, Altaf Ahmed, who appeared for Tamil Nadu, explained that the High Court had committed an error by the impugned judgment. Nedumaran, A. Thayappan, Pavanan and Subha Veerapandian, who were arrested under POTA moved for bail before the POTA court and it was dismissed on October 17, 2002 on the ground that under Sec. 49 (7) bail could be filed only after the expiry of one year. The High Court, on appeal, however, held that Sec. 49 (7) did not impose any embargo on the right of an accused to move for bail before the expiry of one year from the date of remand. The petitioners were permitted to file a fresh bail application, which would be considered, by the special court on merits, the High Court had said. Challenging this order dated March 3, the Tamil Nadu Government said the High Court had taken an erroneous view that the language used in Sec. 49 (7) was complementary to Sec. 49 (6) and such an interpretation had to be made as to lesson the rigour of Sec. 40 (7) of POTA. It prayed for the setting aside the impugned judgment and an interim stay of its operation.
Printer friendly
page
News:
Front Page |
National |
Southern States |
Other States |
International |
Opinion |
Business |
Sport |
Science & Tech |
Miscellaneous |
|
|
|
The Hindu Group: Home | About Us | Copyright | Archives | Contacts | Subscription Group Sites: The Hindu | Business Line | The Sportstar | Frontline | The Hindu eBooks | Home |
Copyright © 2003, The
Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of
this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of
The Hindu
|