1. Mohd. Younus v.

State of Telangana, 2018 SCC Online Hyd 1965

Single judge bench

Judge name: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE B. SIVA SANKARA RAO

Case Background :

2. A.K. Gopalan vs The State Of Madras

2 judge bench
Judge names: Kania, Hiralal J. (Cj)
Case background:
In this particular case the petition was made by Mr. A. K. Gopalan under Article 32(1) of
the Constitution of India, In pursuance of an order made under the Preventive Detention
Act, 1950, a writ of Habeus Corpus was filed against his detention. Mr. A.K. Gopalan
was a communist leader, and since December 1947 he had been under detention,
as imprisonment under ordinary criminal laws he was convicted & sentenced. However,
these convictions were overruled by the court. A.k. Gopalan when detained, on 1st
March 1950, was served upon an order by the State Government of Madras, made
under section 3 (1) of the particular Act, which confers upon the State or Central
Government. After then he challenged in court the legitimacy of the order under the Act
on the ground that the Act violates humans fundamental rights as the provisions given
under Articles 13, 19 & 21, and the provisions of this Act 4 of 1950 of Madras State are
not in conformity with Article 22 of Indian Constitution. Mr. Gopalan also contended that
the order issued was malafide.
Further ref link: https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/ODY3MQ==/AK-Gopalan-v-State-of-
Madras-1950-AIR-27-1950-SCR-88
3. Sanjay Chandra and ors. Vs CBI
2 judge bench
Judge names: G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu

Facts: The Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi had rejected Bail Applications filed by
the appellants. They moved to High Court of Delhi under Section 439 CrPC, but
HC also refused to grant bail to the accused-appellants in this case. Hence, they
moved to Supreme Court.

The appellants were facing trials in respect of offences under Sections 420-B, 468,
471 and 109 IPC and others. (cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of
property, forgery for the purpose of cheating using as genuine a forged document)

Both the courts refused the bail on two grounds:

  The primary offence alleged against the accused persons is very serious
involving deep rooted planning in which huge financial loss is caused to
the State Exchequer
 The secondary ground is that the possibility of the accused persons
tempering with the witness

Further ref: https://fitinlaw.wordpress.com/2021/05/14/sanjay-chandra-v-cbi-air-2012-sc-830-case-

summary/

4. Maneka Gandhi v/s Union Of India, 1978: The Golden Triangle

7 judge bench
Judge names: M.H. Beg, (C.J.) Y.V. Chandrachud, V.R. Krishna Iyer, P.N.
Bhagwati, N.L. Untwalia, S. Murtaza Fazal Ali and P.S Kailasam.
Facts Of The Case

The petitioner Maneka Gandhi's passport was issued on 1st June 1976 as per the Passport
Act of 1967. On 2nd July 1977, the Regional Passport Office (New Delhi) ordered her to
surrender her passport. The petitioner was also not given any reason for this arbitrary and
unilateral decision of the External Affairs Ministry, citing public interest.
 

The petitioner approached the Supreme Court by invoking its writ jurisdiction and
contending that the State's act of impounding her passport was a direct assault on her Right
of Personal Liberty as guaranteed by Article 21. It is pertinent to mention that the Supreme
Court in Satwant Singh Sawhney v. Ramarathnam[2] held that right to travel abroad is
well within the ambit of Article 21, although the extent to which the Passport Act diluted this
particular right was unclear.
 

The authorities, however, answered that the reasons are not to be specified in the "interest
of the general public". In response, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Art 32 for
violation of fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
alleging that Section 10(3)(c) of the Act was ultra vires the constitution.

Further info. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-7094-case-analysis-on-maneka-

gandhi-v-s-union-of-india-1978-the-golden-triangle.html

5. State vs Captain Jagjit Singh

3 judge bench: KN Wanchoo, KC das gupta, JC shah

Facts: The respondent Jagjit Singh along with two others was prosecuted for conspiracy and
also under Sections 3 and 5 of the Indian Official Secrets Act. The case against the three
persons was that they in conspiracy had passed on official secrets to a foreign agency.

The respondent applied for bail to the Sessions Judge; but his application was rejected by the
Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi. Thereupon the respondent applied under Section 498 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure to the High Court, and the main contention urged before the
High Court was that on the facts disclosed the case against the respondent could only be
under Section 5 of the Act, which is bailable and not under Section 3 which is non bailable.

The High Court took the view that as the other two persons prosecuted along with the
respondent had been released on bail, the respondent should also be so released, particularly
as it appeared that the trial was likely to take a considerable time and the respondent was not
likely to abscond.