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 Cr.M.P.No. 2/Goonda/2014, dated 25.06.2014, by the detaining authority who has been shown as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Nallasamy and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Sipcot Police Station, Manamadurai 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. 110 of 2013 on the file of Sipcot Police Station registered under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 of the Indian Penal Code, Section 25(1)(A) of the Arms Act and also under Section 4(a)(i) of the Indian Explosive Substances Act, 1908.
(ii) Crime No. 65 of 2014 on the file of Manamadurai Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 23.05.2014, one Jothibasu has given a complaint against the detenu by way of stating that he has robbed Rs. 1,200/- from him and consequently a case has been registered in Crime No. 126 of 2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and on the same day the detenu has been arrested and remanded to custody till 06.06.2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
The detaining authority viz., the 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 in the habit of committing crimes one after another and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 against him 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 mother of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been stated to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that in connection with ground case registered in Crime No. 126 of 2014 of 2014 on the file of Sipcot Police Station, under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, the detenu has been arrested on 23.05.2014 and on the same day he has been remanded to custody till 06.06.2014 by the Judicial Magistrate, Manamadurai and subsequently his remand has been extended till 04.07.2014, but he has not been supplied with the remand order as well as its extension and further on the side of the detenu, four representations have been given and the same have not been disposed of without delay and under the said circumstances the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the detaining authority after considering the fact that the detenu is a habitual offender has rightly branded him as ''Goonda'' by way of passing the impugned detention order and all the representations submitted by the detenu have been duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not require any interference.
As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, the detenu has been arrested on 23.05.2014 in connection with ground case registered in Crime No. 126 of 2014 on the file of Sipcot Police Station, under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and remanded to custody till 06.06.2014 and subsequently his remand has been extended upto 04.07.2014. In fact this Court has groped the entire booklet, wherein no indication is present with regard to issuance of original remand order and also subsequent extension order.
On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been filed wherein it has been clearly stated that on the side of the detenu four representations have been submitted and with regard first representation no delay has occurred and with regard to second, third and fourth representation, in each spell lot of delay is available and the same has not been explained on the side of the respondents.
Considering the fact that copies of remand order as well as remand extension order have not been given to the detenu and also considering that his representations have not been disposed of without delay, this Court is of the view that the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are affected and that itself would be sufficient for coming to a conclusion that the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 25.06.2014 passed in Cr.M.P.No. 2/Goonda/2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Nallasamy, Son of Sivasuriyan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.