STATE OF UTTAR PRADEISH versus ABDUL SAMAD & ANOTHER

STATE OF UTTAR PRADEISH versus ABDUL SAMAD & ANOTHER

By majority, detention was not illegal; at no time during the relevant period were the respondents detained for more than 24 hours without production before a judicial authority. The High Court was wrong in ordering release. Production before the High Court within 24 hours satisfied Article 22(2). Dissent: continuous detention violated Article 22(2) since respondents were not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

Parties
Appellant: State of Uttar Pradesh; Respondent: Abdul Samad & Another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 March 1962
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 28, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court (lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Cr. Misc. Case No. 186 of 1960
Outcome
Appeal allowed by majority; High Court's order set aside.
Legal Topics
Habeas Corpus, Detention, Deportation, Article 22(2) of the Constitution, Illegal Detention
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Habeas Corpus Detention Deportation Article 22(2) of the Constitution Illegal Detention

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

State of Uttar Pradesh

Appellant

Abdul Samad & Another

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Order Dated July 28, 1960, of the Allahabad High Court (lucknow Bench) at Lucknow in Cr. Misc. Case No. 186 of 1960

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether detention pending deportation without production before a Magistrate within 24 hours is illegal under Article 22(2) of the Constitution
  2. 2 Whether the High Court was correct in ordering release of the respondents on the ground of violation of Article 22(2)

Ratio Decidendi

By majority, detention was not illegal; at no time during the relevant period were the respondents detained for more than 24 hours without production before a judicial authority. The High Court was wrong in ordering release. Production before the High Court within 24 hours satisfied Article 22(2). Dissent: continuous detention violated Article 22(2) since respondents were not produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed by majority; High Court's order set aside.

Orders

  • Respondents' release order by High Court set aside; no further orders as respondents had subsequently obtained civil court injunction.