{"id":267580,"date":"2006-07-10T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-07-09T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006"},"modified":"2017-02-09T16:36:05","modified_gmt":"2017-02-09T11:06:05","slug":"ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","title":{"rendered":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: A Pasayat<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  732 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nIbrahim Nazeer\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\nRESPONDENT:\nState of Tamil Nadu and Anr.\t\t\t\t\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/07\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; C.K. THAKKER\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">J U D G M E N T<br \/>\n(Arising Out of S.L.P. (Crl.) No. 1194 of 2006) <\/p>\n<p>ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_1\">\tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">\tAppellant calls in question legality of the judgment<br \/>\nrendered by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court<br \/>\ndismissing the habeas corpus petition filed by one Rizwana<br \/>\nZiyath seeking release of her husband, the present appellant<br \/>\nIbrahim Nazeer (hereinafter referred to as the &#8216;detenu&#8217;) who<br \/>\nwas detained and kept in custody in the Central Prison of<br \/>\nChennai under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_1\">Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act<\/a>, 1974 (in short the<br \/>\n&#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_1\">COFEPOSA Act<\/a>&#8216;).  The order of detention was passed under<br \/>\n<a href=\"\/doc\/153444468\/\" id=\"a_2\">Section 3(1)(i)<\/a> of COFEPOSA Act with a view to prevent the<br \/>\ndetenu from indulging in smuggling goods in future. The order<br \/>\nof detention is dated 20.9.2005.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">\tThe background facts which led to the detention of the<br \/>\ndetenu as set out in the grounds of detention are as follows:\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">\tOn 31.8.2005, the detenu-Ibrahim Nazeer, arrived<br \/>\nChennai from Singapore by Indian Airlines Flight IC 558 with<br \/>\nTicket No. 51671263862. After immigration clearance, he<br \/>\ncollected three bags from the conveyor belt and proceeded to<br \/>\nCustoms Table No.8 where he declared that he was in<br \/>\npossession of electronic goods worth Rs.30,000\/-. At this<br \/>\npoint, he was intercepted by the Customs Officer who<br \/>\nquestioned him about the contents of his baggage. He<br \/>\nreiterated the declaration given at the table that he was in<br \/>\npossession of electronic goods of the value of Rs.30,000\/-.<br \/>\nSince his reply was not convincing, his three bags were taken<br \/>\nup for examination in the presence of two independent<br \/>\nmahazar witnesses. He produced two claim Tags bearing Nos.<br \/>\nSQ 441432 and SQ 441433 and further stated in the presence<br \/>\nof independent witnesses that the cardboard carton bearing<br \/>\nTag No. SQ 442077 tagged in the name of Smt. Selvi<br \/>\nNarayanan actually belonged to him and that as he was<br \/>\nalready having excess weight, he made use of her baggage<br \/>\nweight entitlement.  Enquiries by the officer showed that the<br \/>\nsaid Selvi Narayanan had already left the arrival hall and that<br \/>\nshe had not filed any claim for missing baggage. In the<br \/>\npresence of witnesses, his three bags were opened and<br \/>\nexamined one by one.  Examination of navy blue colour bag<br \/>\nbearing baggage Tag No. SQ 441432 resulted in the recovery of<br \/>\n12 Nos. Pioneer (model DEH-P 7750 MP) Car Stereos and 500<br \/>\nNos. of Hynix 256 MB RAMs. Examination of indigo colour bag<br \/>\nbearing baggage Tag No. SQ 441433 resulted in the recovery of<br \/>\n10 Nos. of Panasonic (model NV-GS 25 GC) digital video<br \/>\ncameras, 5 Nos. of Sony (model DCR-TRV 285E) digital video<br \/>\ncameras, 3 Nos. of Pioneer Car Stereos and 10 Nos. of<br \/>\nMotorola V3 mobile phones (without accessories). Examination<br \/>\nof Pioneer cardboard carton bearing baggage Tag No. SQ 442<br \/>\n077 resulted in the recovery of 4 Nos. of Panasonic (model No.<br \/>\nNV-MD 9000 EN) Digital Video Cameras.  It is also stated in<br \/>\nthe grounds that after fulfilling all the formalities, the value of<br \/>\nthe seized goods was ascertained. On the date of seizure, the<br \/>\nvalue of the seized goods was Rs.8,22,500\/- (CIF) and<br \/>\nRs.11,51,500\/- (Market Value) approximately. After finding<br \/>\nthat the adjudication and prosecution proceedings are likely to<br \/>\nbe initiated under <a href=\"\/doc\/1059693\/\" id=\"a_3\">Customs Act<\/a>, 1962 (in short the &#8216;<a href=\"\/doc\/1059693\/\" id=\"a_4\">Customs<br \/>\nAct<\/a>&#8216;), the State Government after satisfying itself with the<br \/>\nmaterials placed, arrived at a conclusion that it is necessary to<br \/>\ndetain him under the provisions of the <a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_5\">COFEPOSA Act<\/a>, with a<br \/>\nview to prevent him from indulging in smuggling goods in<br \/>\nfuture. The grounds further show that while arriving at the<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction to detain him under the <a href=\"\/doc\/135830564\/\" id=\"a_6\">COFEPOSA<br \/>\nAct<\/a>, the State Government has taken into consideration facts<br \/>\nand materials referred to and relied upon in the grounds<br \/>\nmentioned above and also the statements, bail petition,<br \/>\nrepresentation and mahazars etc.                         <\/p>\n<p>\tThe detention was questioned by the wife of the appellant<br \/>\nby filing a habeas corpus petition.  Stand of the appellant<br \/>\nbefore the High Court essentially was that the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority has merely, without application of mind, followed<br \/>\nthe allegations of the Custom authorities without any<br \/>\nindependent inquiry.  Further there was no basis for holding<br \/>\nthat there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out<br \/>\non bail. The High Court noted the factual position and found<br \/>\nthat though one of the bags was in the name of Selvi<br \/>\nNarayanan, it was in the possession of the detenu who<br \/>\ncollected three bags from the belt and carried them to the<br \/>\ncustoms examination table. The customs declaration slip<br \/>\nclearly established this fact. Further the said Selvi Narayanan<br \/>\nwent out of the airport without claiming any baggage and did<br \/>\nnot complain of any loss of baggage.  Therefore, the customs<br \/>\nauthorities were justified in holding that the baggage belongs<br \/>\nto the detenu. So far as the valuation is concerned, it was<br \/>\nnoted that though the appellant claimed so, the Valuation<br \/>\nRules, 1988 are not applicable to cases of baggage of<br \/>\npassengers who are governed by the Baggage Rules, 1988. So<br \/>\nfar as the plea relating to imminent possibility of the detenu<br \/>\ncoming out on bail, the High Court noted that the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority clearly indicated that it was aware of the fact that<br \/>\nthe detenu had filed petition for bail on 8.9.2005 which was<br \/>\nwithdrawn on 17.9.2005.  It was also noted that the Detaining<br \/>\nAuthority was of the view on the basis of the materials<br \/>\ncollected that the detenu was likely to indulge in activities<br \/>\nagain while on bail and there was compelling necessity to<br \/>\nprevent him from smuggling of goods. Accordingly the habeas<br \/>\ncorpus petition was dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\">\tIn support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellant<br \/>\nsubmitted that the only plea raised was that the High Court<br \/>\nwas not justified in holding that the Detaining Authority&#8217;s view<br \/>\nabout imminent possibility of detenu coming out on bail was<br \/>\ncorrect.  It was also submitted that since the detenu had not<br \/>\nfiled any bail application after withdrawal of the first petition,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority could not have inferred that there was<br \/>\npossibility of his being released on bail. Reference has been<br \/>\nmade to several decisions of this Court to contend that there<br \/>\nmust be material to show about such imminent possibility.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">\tPer contra learned counsel for the respondent-State and<br \/>\nthe Union of India supported the impugned judgment of the<br \/>\nHigh Court.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">It has to be noted that whether prayer for bail would be<br \/>\naccepted depends on circumstances of each case and no hard<br \/>\nand fast rule can be applied. The only requirement is that the<br \/>\ndetaining authority should be aware that the detenu is already<br \/>\nin custody and is likely to be released on bail.  The conclusion<br \/>\nthat the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of<br \/>\nthe detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him,<br \/>\nthe detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is<br \/>\nlikelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his<br \/>\nsubjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such<br \/>\nsatisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the<br \/>\ncase, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of<br \/>\nthe opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on<br \/>\nbail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders<br \/>\ngranting bail are passed by various courts.  Appellant has not<br \/>\ndisputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was<br \/>\nplaced by learned counsel for the appellant on <a href=\"\/doc\/1093856\/\" id=\"a_7\">Rajesh Gulati v.<br \/>\nGovt. of NCT of Delhi and Another<\/a> [2002 (7) SCC 129]. The<br \/>\nfactual scenario in that case was entirely different.  In fact, five<br \/>\nbail applications filed had been already rejected. In that<br \/>\nbackground this Court observed that it was not &#8220;normal&#8221; case.<br \/>\nThe High Court was justified in rejecting the stand of the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">\tThe inevitable result is that the appeal is without merit<br \/>\nand is accordingly dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 Author: A Pasayat Bench: Arijit Pasayat, C.K. Thakker CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 732 of 2006 PETITIONER: Ibrahim Nazeer RESPONDENT: State of Tamil Nadu and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10\/07\/2006 BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT &amp; C.K. THAKKER JUDGMENT: J U [&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-267580","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>Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - 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\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-02-09T11:06:05+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=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T11:06:05+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\"},\"wordCount\":1303,\"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\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\",\"name\":\"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-02-09T11:06:05+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - 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\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-02-09T11:06:05+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":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006","datePublished":"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T11:06:05+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006"},"wordCount":1303,"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\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006","name":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-07-09T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-02-09T11:06:05+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ibrahim-nazeer-vs-state-of-tamil-nadu-and-anr-on-10-july-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ibrahim Nazeer vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 10 July, 2006"}]},{"@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\/267580","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=267580"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/267580\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=267580"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=267580"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=267580"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}