AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.—This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in P.D. No.61/2014 dated 31.07.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Baskar @ Abaayam Baskar, Son of David and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i)Crime No. 202 of 2001, Naducauvery Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii)Crime No. 15 of 2014, Thiruvaiyaru Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 19.06.2014 one Senthilmaran has lodged a complaint against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No. 119 of 2014 under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as ''Goonda'' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu a representation has been submitted and the same has not been considered without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference.
On the side of the respondents, a pro forma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, seven clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, twelve clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 31.07.2014 passed in P.D. No.61/2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Baskar @ Abaayam Baskar, S/o. David at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.