J
Jasmanani binti Ibrahim
Person 1 case
Jasmanani binti Ibrahim appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:
wa-22ncvc-735-11-2021
VINODKUMAR A/L VERAPPAN v 1. ) D/KPL KERRY YAN 2. ) INSP MUHAMAD IZHAR BIN MD SANI 3. ) SUPT TAY KIM CHUAN 4. ) ACP GAN TACK GUAN 5. ) KETUA POLIS NEGARA (TAN SRI DATO' SERI ABDUL HAMID BADOR pada masa material) 6. ) NUR SURIATI BINTI MOHAMAD 7. ) TIMBALAN MENTERI DALAM NEGERI (DATUK MOHD AZIS BIN JAMMAN pada masa material) 8. ) KEMENTERIAN DALAM NEGERI 9. ) JASMANANI BINTI IBRAHIM 10. ) PENGERUSI LEMBAGA PENASIHAT (Y.A. DATO' OTHMAN BIN YUSOF pada masa material) 11. ) PENGUASA KANAN PUSAT PE...
MYHC 4 June 2025
See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.
About Jasmanani binti Ibrahim
Jasmanani binti Ibrahim appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning June 2025 to June 2025. Jasmanani binti Ibrahim appeared as defendant in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).
How many court cases involve Jasmanani binti Ibrahim?
Jasmanani binti Ibrahim appears in 1 published judgment from June 2025 to June 2025. Most commonly as defendant (1 cases).
Practice Areas
In this action, the plaintiff challenges the act of the defendants that allegedly led to his wrongful arrest under section 3(1) of the Drug Dependent (Treatment and Rehabilitation) Act 1983 ("Act 283") as well as his subsequent wrongful detention allegedly made under the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 ("Act 316"). The defendants, however, argue that the arrest and detention were lawful under Act 283 and Act 316. 1 The Court finds that the plaintiff was arrested in compliance with the law under section 3 of Act 283. A reasonable suspicion of drug dependency led to the plaintiff's arrest in this case, as defined in section 3(1) of Act 283. As for the second arrest, the Court finds that it was made in accordance with section 3 of Act 316. This section provides that any police officer may, without a warrant, arrest and detain a person for the purpose of investigation if the officer has reason to believe that there are grounds to justify his detention under section 6(1) of Act 316. 1 However, the Court finds that the Minister's failure to consider the 2nd defendant's complete report constitutes a violation of section 3(3) of Act 316. This is due to the fact that such a requirement has a mandatory effect on the part of the investigating officer. Here, the investigating officer did not provide his complete report to the Minister of Home Affairs. Section 3(3) of Act 316 mandates that the 2nd defendant submit a complete report to the minister. As such, this failure proves fatal to the defendants' conduct in detaining the plaintiff. 1 Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for false imprisonment has been proven; however, only in relation to the Detention Order. 1