{"id":204020,"date":"2007-04-12T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-04-11T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007"},"modified":"2017-05-07T08:33:35","modified_gmt":"2017-05-07T03:03:35","slug":"union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","title":{"rendered":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: . A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta<\/div>\n<pre>           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  546 of 2007\n\nPETITIONER:\nUnion of India\n\nRESPONDENT:\nYumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj &amp; Anr\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 12\/04\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nDr. ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n<p>CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.     546          OF 2007<br \/>\n(Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 6033 of 2006) <\/p>\n<p>Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of the<br \/>\nDivision Bench of the Gauhati High Court, Imphal Bench,<br \/>\nallowing the habeas corpus petition filed by respondent no.1.<br \/>\nIn the writ petition before the High Court the order of the<br \/>\nDistrict Magistrate Tamenglong passed in exercise of powers<br \/>\nconferred under sub-section (3) of Section 3 of the National<br \/>\nSecurity Act, 1980 (in short the &#8216;Act&#8217;) read with Home<br \/>\nDepartment&#8217;s Order No.17(1)\/49\/80-S(Pt) dated 31.5.2005<br \/>\nwas challenged. Though several grounds were urged in<br \/>\nsupport of the application, the High Court accepted the stand<br \/>\nthat there was unexplained delay in disposing of the<br \/>\nrepresentation made.  It is to be noted that counter affidavit<br \/>\nhad been filed giving details of the steps taken after the receipt<br \/>\nof the representation. It was explained that some time was<br \/>\ntaken to obtain the view of the sponsoring authority.  The High<br \/>\nCourt held that the views of the sponsoring authority were not<br \/>\nnecessary to be taken and, therefore, the delay had not been<br \/>\nproperly explained.  Accordingly the order of detention was<br \/>\nquashed.\n<\/p>\n<p>Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<br \/>\nview expressed by the High Court is clearly contrary to the<br \/>\nviews expressed by this Court in several cases.\n<\/p>\n<p>There is no appearance on behalf of respondent no.1 in<br \/>\nspite of the service of the notice.\n<\/p>\n<p>The factual position needs to be noted before dealing with<br \/>\nthe contention as to desirability of obtaining views of<br \/>\nsponsoring authority. The order of detention dated 3.9.2005<br \/>\nwas served on respondent no.1 (hereinafter referred to as the<br \/>\n&#8216;detenu&#8217;) on 14.9.2005.  The detention was approved by the<br \/>\nGovernor of Manipur on 26.9.2005. The Ministry of Home<br \/>\nAffairs received the representation made by the detenu<br \/>\nagainst the detention on 3.11.2005.  Immediately the parawise<br \/>\ncomments were called for from the sponsoring  authority. The<br \/>\ncomments were received on 19.12.2005 and on 20.12.2005<br \/>\nthe representation was rejected.  On 7.11.2005 detenu filed a<br \/>\nWrit Petition (Crl.) No. 50 of 2005 before the Gauhati High<br \/>\nCourt Imphal Bench for quashing the order of detention. It<br \/>\nwas submitted that there was unusual delay in disposing of<br \/>\nthe writ petition filed by the detenu.\n<\/p>\n<p>So far as the pivotal question whether there was delay<br \/>\nin disposal of the representation is concerned, same has to<br \/>\nbe considered in the background of Article 22(5) of the<br \/>\nConstitution. A constitutional protection is given to every<br \/>\ndetenu which mandates the grant of liberty to the detenu to<br \/>\nmake a representation against detention, as imperated in<br \/>\nArticle 22(5) of the Constitution. It also imperates the<br \/>\nauthority to whom the representation is addressed to deal<br \/>\nwith the same with utmost expedition.  The representation is<br \/>\nto be considered in its right perspective keeping in view the<br \/>\nfact that the detention of the detenu is based on subjective<br \/>\nsatisfaction of the authority concerned, and infringement of<br \/>\nthe constitutional right conferred under Article 22(5)<br \/>\ninvalidates the detention order. Personal liberty protected<br \/>\nunder Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of<br \/>\nconstitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining<br \/>\nauthority to show that the impugned detention meticulously<br \/>\naccords with the procedure established by law.  The<br \/>\nstringency and concern of the judicial vigilance that is<br \/>\nneeded was aptly described in the following words in Thomas<br \/>\nPacham Dales&#8217; case: (1881 (6) QBD 376):\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Then comes the question upon the habeas<br \/>\ncorpus. It is a general rule, which has always<br \/>\nbeen acted upon by the Courts of England,<br \/>\nthat if any person procures the imprisonment<br \/>\nof another he must take care to do so by<br \/>\nsteps, all of which are entirely regular, and<br \/>\nthat if he fails to follow every step in the<br \/>\nprocess with extreme regularity the Court will<br \/>\nnot allow the imprisonment to continue.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Article 21 of the Constitution having declared that no<br \/>\nperson shall be deprived of life and liberty except in<br \/>\naccordance with the procedure established by law, a<br \/>\nmachinery was definitely needed to examine the question of<br \/>\nillegal detention with utmost promptitude.  The writ of habeas<br \/>\ncorpus is a device of this nature.  Blackstone called it &#8220;the<br \/>\ngreat and efficacious writ in all manner of illegal confinement&#8221;.<br \/>\nThe writ has been described as a writ of right which is<br \/>\ngrantable ex dobito justitae.  Though a writ of right, it is not a<br \/>\nwrit of course.  The applicant must show a prima facie case of<br \/>\nhis unlawful detention.  Once, however, he shows such a<br \/>\ncause and the return is not good and sufficient, he is entitled<br \/>\nto this writ as of right.\n<\/p>\n<p>In case of preventive detention no offence is proved, nor<br \/>\nany charge is formulated and the justification of such<br \/>\ndetention is suspicion or reasonability and there is no criminal<br \/>\nconviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence.<br \/>\nPreventive justice requires an action to be taken to prevent<br \/>\napprehended objectionable activities. (See Rex v. Nallidev<br \/>\n(1917 AC 260); <a href=\"\/doc\/417170\/\">Mr. Kubic Dariusz  v. Union of India and<br \/>\nothers (AIR<\/a> 1990 SC 605). But at the same time, a person&#8217;s<br \/>\ngreatest of human freedoms, i.e., personal liberty is deprived,<br \/>\nand, therefore, the laws of preventive detention are strictly<br \/>\nconstrued, and a meticulous compliance with the procedural<br \/>\nsafeguard, however, technical is mandatory.  The compulsions<br \/>\nof the primordial need to maintain order in society, without<br \/>\nwhich enjoyment of all rights, including the right of personal<br \/>\nliberty would lose all their meanings, are the true justifications<br \/>\nfor the laws of preventive detention. This jurisdiction has been<br \/>\ndescribed as a &#8220;jurisdiction of suspicion&#8221;, and the compulsions<br \/>\nto preserve the values of freedom of a democratic society and<br \/>\nsocial order sometimes merit the curtailment of the individual<br \/>\nliberty. (See Ayya alias Ayub v. State of U.P. and another (AIR<br \/>\n1989 SC 364).  To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence<br \/>\nto the written law, said Thomas Jafferson, would be to lose the<br \/>\nlaw, absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.  No law is an<br \/>\nend itself and the curtailment of liberty for reasons of State&#8217;s<br \/>\nsecurity and national economic discipline as a necessary evil<br \/>\nhas to be administered under strict constitutional restrictions.<br \/>\nNo carte blanche is given to any organ of the State to be the<br \/>\nsole arbiter in such matters.\n<\/p>\n<p>The High Court was of the view that parawise comments<br \/>\nwere not required to be called for and it was held that the<br \/>\nsame was fatal to the detention.\n<\/p>\n<p>The question as to whether the views of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority are to be called for and whether they are necessary<br \/>\nhave been dealt with in several cases. <a href=\"\/doc\/212274\/\">In Kamarunnissa v.<br \/>\nUnion of India and Anr.<\/a> (1991 (1) SCC 128) it was observed as<br \/>\nunder:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The learned counsel for the petitioners<br \/>\nraised several contentions including the<br \/>\ncontentions negatived by the High Court of<br \/>\nBombay.  It was firstly contended that the<br \/>\ndetenus had made representations on<br \/>\nDecember 18, 1989 which were rejected by the<br \/>\ncommunication dated January 30, 1990 after<br \/>\nan inordinate delay.  The representations<br \/>\ndated December 18, 1989 were delivered to the<br \/>\njail authorities on December 20, 1989.  The jail<br \/>\nauthorities dispatched them by registered post.<br \/>\nDecember 23, 24 and 25, 1989 were non-\n<\/p>\n<p>working days. The representations were<br \/>\nreceived by the COFEPOSA Unit on December<br \/>\n28, 1989.  On the very next day i.e. December<br \/>\n29, 1989 they were forwarded to the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority for comments. December<br \/>\n30 and 31, 1989 were non-working days.<br \/>\nSimilarly, January 6 and 7, 1990 were non-<br \/>\nworking days.  The comments of the<br \/>\nsponsoring authority were forwarded to the<br \/>\nCOFEPOSA Unit on January 9, 1990.  Thus it<br \/>\nis obvious that the sponsoring authority could<br \/>\nnot have received the representation before<br \/>\nJanuary 1, 1990.  Between January 1, 1990<br \/>\nand January 8, 1990 there were two non-<br \/>\nworking days, namely, January 6 and 7, 1990<br \/>\nand, therefore, the sponsoring authority can be<br \/>\nsaid to have offered the comments within the<br \/>\nfour or five days available to it.  It cannot,<br \/>\ntherefore, be said that the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority was guilty of inordinate delay.  The<br \/>\ncontention that the views of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority were totally unnecessary and the<br \/>\ntime taken by that authority could have been<br \/>\nsaved does not appeal to us because<br \/>\nconsulting the authority which initiated the<br \/>\nproposal can never be said to be an<br \/>\nunwarranted exercise.  After the COFEPOSA<br \/>\nUnit received the comments of the sponsoring<br \/>\nauthority it dealt with the representations and<br \/>\nrejected them on January 16, 1990.  The<br \/>\ncomments were dispatched on January 9,<br \/>\n1990 and were received by the COFEPOSA<br \/>\nUnit on January 11, 1990.  The file was<br \/>\npromptly submitted to the Finance Minister on<br \/>\nthe 12th; 13th and 14th being non-working days,<br \/>\nhe took the decision to reject the<br \/>\nrepresentation on January 16, 1990 and the<br \/>\nmemo of rejection was dispatched by post on<br \/>\nJanuary 18, 1990. It appears that there was<br \/>\npostal delay in the receipt of the<br \/>\ncommunication by the detenus but for that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority cannot be blamed. It is,<br \/>\ntherefore, obvious from the explanation given<br \/>\nin the counter that there was no delay on the<br \/>\npart of the detaining authority in dealing with<br \/>\nthe representations of the detenus. Our<br \/>\nattention was drawn to the case law in this<br \/>\nbehalf but we do not consider it necessary to<br \/>\nrefer to the same as the question of delay has<br \/>\nto be answered in the facts and circumstances<br \/>\nof each case. Whether or not the delay, if any,<br \/>\nis properly explained would depend on the<br \/>\nfacts of each case and in the present case we<br \/>\nare satisfied that there was no delay at all as is<br \/>\napparent from the facts narrated above.  We,<br \/>\ntherefore, do not find any merit in this<br \/>\nsubmission.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>Again in Dr. Prakash v. State of T.N. and Ors. (2002 (7)<br \/>\nSC 759) it was held as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is lastly contended that the State<br \/>\nGovernment was prejudiced by the opinion<br \/>\nrendered by the detaining authority. This<br \/>\nargument is built around the fact that the<br \/>\nState Government sought parawise remarks<br \/>\nfrom the 2nd respondent while dealing with the<br \/>\npetitioner&#8217;s representation.  In response to that<br \/>\nthe 2nd respondent while sending his remarks<br \/>\nin the last para stated that the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation may be rejected.  This<br \/>\nrecommendation according to the learned<br \/>\ncounsel has weighed in the mind of the<br \/>\nconfirming authority to reject the petitioner&#8217;s<br \/>\nrepresentation.  We are unable to accept this<br \/>\nargument also. It is normal under the rules of<br \/>\nbusiness for the Government to seek the<br \/>\nremarks of the officer against whose order a<br \/>\nrepresentation is made to the Government.  As<br \/>\na matter of fact, if such remarks are not called<br \/>\nfor and statutory representations are rejected<br \/>\nsummarily by the Government it would be<br \/>\nconsidered as a rejection without application of<br \/>\nmind. Therefore, in cases where the<br \/>\nconsidering authority feels that the remarks of<br \/>\nthe officer who made the original order are<br \/>\nnecessary then such superior authority must<br \/>\ncall for such remarks. In the instant case, the<br \/>\nrepresentation filed by the detenu did raise<br \/>\ncertain factual points which without the<br \/>\ncomment of the detaining authority might have<br \/>\nbeen difficult to be dealt with.  Therefore, in<br \/>\nour opinion, the authority considering the<br \/>\nrepresentation had justly called for the<br \/>\nremarks.  The next limb of this argument that<br \/>\nthe State Government was influenced by the<br \/>\nremarks of the detaining authority to dismiss<br \/>\nthe representation is too far-fetched.  In the<br \/>\ninstant case, the Government of Tamil Nadu<br \/>\nhas been authorized to be the authority to<br \/>\nconsider the representation against the<br \/>\ndetention order made by the Commissioner of<br \/>\nPolice who is subordinate to it.  Therefore, to<br \/>\npresume that such higher authority would be<br \/>\ninfluenced by an observation made by the<br \/>\nsubordinate to such an extent as to surrender<br \/>\nits independent authority is to demean the<br \/>\nindependence of authority exercised by the<br \/>\nState Government, hence this argument is<br \/>\nrecorded here only to be rejected.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>In the circumstances, the High Court&#8217;s impugned order is<br \/>\nclearly indefensible and is set aside. However, the detaining<br \/>\nauthority shall decide within a period of two months if it would<br \/>\nbe desirable to take back the respondent no.1 to custody.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeal is allowed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007 Author: . A Pasayat Bench: Dr. Arijit Pasayat, Lokeshwar Singh Panta CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 546 of 2007 PETITIONER: Union of India RESPONDENT: Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ Suraj &amp; Anr [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-204020","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\"},\"wordCount\":1993,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\",\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007","datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007"},"wordCount":1993,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007","name":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ ... on 12 April, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-04-11T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-07T03:03:35+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/union-of-india-vs-yumnam-anand-m-bocha-kora-on-12-april-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Union Of India vs Yumnam Anand M. @ Bocha @ Kora @ &#8230; on 12 April, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204020","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204020"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204020\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204020"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204020"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204020"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}