AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. Banumathi, J.—Challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition is to the detention order, dated 19.08.2008, whereby Petitioner''s son viz.
Kumar @ Minnal Kumar has been detained under T.N. Act 14/82 branding him as ""Goonda"" as contemplated u/s 2(f) of the said Act.
The detenu had earlier come to adverse notice in two cases - Madhichiam PS Cime No. 691/2006 u/s 302 IPC; Madhichiam PS Crime No.
100/2007 u/s 341, 323, 427, 506(ii) IPC. On 1.6.2007 at about 10.45 hours when Karuppasamy was walking along with Veerayee and was
going in front of Kathiresan tea stall, detenu armed with a big knife waylaid both Karuppasamy and Veerayee and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/-.
When Karuppasamy replied that he had no money, detenu abused Karuppasamy and placed knife on Karuppasamy''s chest, pressed and robbed
a sum of Rs. 520/- from Karuppasamy''s shirt pocket. When Karuppasamy raised alarm out of fear, crowd gathered and detenu brandished the
knife and threatened them that he would stab and kill them, if any one came to catch him. The passersby ran helter-skelter out of panic and the
shopkeepers downed the shutters. Thereafter, Karuppasamy went to Madhichiam Police Station and lodged a complaint. On the basis of
complaint, a case was registered in Madhichiam PS Crime No. 463/2007 u/s 341, 397, 506(ii) IPC. Detenu was surrendered himself on
15.7.2008 before J.M. No. II, Madurai and has been remanded to judicial custody. On being satisfied that the activities of the detenu were
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, detention order was clamped on him.
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner mainly raised two contentions:
(i) there was unexplained delay in passing the detention order.
(ii) ground of detention referring to only one incident u/s 397 IPC and by such solitary instance, it cannot be said that detenu is habitually
committing crimes.
We may firstly deal with question of unexplained delay in passing the detention order. We may notice the following dates:-
� Ground case occurrence in Cr.No.463/2007 was on 01.6.2007.
� Gist of ground case is that while complainant Karuppasamy was walking along with Veerayee, detenu is alleged to have waylaid both
Karuppasamy and Veerayee and demanded a sum of Rs. 500/- for expenses and when Karuppasamy replied that he had no money, detenu is
alleged to have placed knife on his chest and robbed a sum of Rs. 520/-. Detenu is alleged to have threatened the public and passerby that he
would stab and kill them and therefore the passerby ran helter-skelter out of panic and the shopkeepers downed the shutters which affected the
public tranquility.
� Even though, occurrence in ground case Cr.No.463/2007 was on 1.6.2007, detenu surrendered in the ground case on 15.7.2008 before the
Court of JM No. II, Madurai.
� While in police custody, on 21.7.2008, detenu was interrogated and his confession statement led to recovery of knife under athatchi.
� After police custody, detenu was produced back in the court on 21.7.2008 and he was remanded to judicial custody and his remand period
was extended till 01.9.2008.
� During that period i.e. on 19.8.2008, the impugned detention order was passed on the ground that detenu is habitually indulging in a prejudicial
activities and if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Detaining authority mainly referred to the ground case Cr.No.463/2007 [occurrence on 1.6.2007] and said that detenu is habitually committing
crimes prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and that if he is released on bail, he will indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial
to the maintenance of public order and therefore, there is compelling necessity to pass an order of detention with a view to prevent him from
indulging in such prejudicial activities in future.
The chain between the grounds of criminal activity alleged by the detaining authority for the purpose of detention is snapped if there is too long
and un-explained delay between offending criminal act and order of detention.
Where order of detention is passed after expiry of long period between the date of criminal incident, prejudicial activity and the date of order of
detention, detention order can be challenged on the ground that there is no nexus between the incident and the order of detention.
In Shiv Ratan Makim Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, , the Supreme Court held as under:
...It is no doubt true that where an unreasonably long period has elapsed between the date of the incident and the date of the order of detention,
an inference may legitimately be drawn that there is no nexus between the incident and the order of detention may be liable to be struck down as
invalid. But there can be no hard and fast rule as to what is the length of time which should be regarded sufficient to snap the nexus between the
incident and the order of detention. We are of the view that here the lapse of time between the date of the incident and the date of the order of
detention has been sufficiently explained by the detaining authority and hence we are not prepared to draw the inference of malefides merely
because the order of detention happened to be made about five months after the petitioner was found carrying two pieces of foreign marked gold.
Whenever there is a delay between the alleged incident or the alleged prejudicial activity and the date of detention, the live link between the
prejudicial activity and the apprehension in future is snapped. Of course, if there is any tenable explanation for the gap between the alleged incident
and the passing of detention order, the Court would be reluctant to interfere with the detention order, despite the fact that the detention order was
passed after a long delay.
As we have pointed out earlier, in the instant case, the incident in ground case was on 01.06.2007, wherein the Detenu was alleged to have
brandished knife thereby affecting public tranquility. Based on the ground case, the Detaining Authority formed a subjective satisfaction that public
were put to fear and they ran helter-skelter and that public tranquility was affected. We have pointed out earlier, the Detenu surrendered on
15.07.2008 before Judicial Magistrate No. II, Madurai. Police custody was taken on 21.07.2008 and on the same day, based on the confession
statement, knife was recovered. The Detention Order came to be passed only on 19.08.2008.
The question arises as to what the Respondents were doing between 01.06.2007 and 19.08.2008. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the
delay in passing the Detention Order. The delay in passing the Detention Order and absence of any explanation for delay in passing the Detention
Order, in our considered view, vitiates the Detention Order. Absence of explanation would amount no nexus between the alleged prejudicial
activity on 01.06.2007 and compulsion for passing the Detention Order. That apart, no material was placed before the Detaining Authority to
show that the Detenu was continuing with his prejudicial activities between 01.06.2007 till the date of his surrender i.e. on 15.07.2008. In such
circumstances, the Detention, Order passed after a long lapse of time is liable to be quashed.
Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of Detention in No. 66/BDFGISSV/2008, dated 19.08.2008,
passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The Detenu Kumar @ Minnal KUmar is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is
required, in accordance with law, in connection with any other case.