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 dated 19.08.2014 passed in M.H.S.Confdl No. 55/2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as first respondent herein against the detenu by name Krishnan, Son of Arumugam and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Vickiramasingapuram 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. 216 of 2014, Ambasamudram Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No. 245 of 2014, Kadayam Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 15.07.2014 one Thangapandi has given a complaint against the detenu in Vickiramasingapuram Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No. 191 of 2014 under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 307 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., first 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 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 brother-in-law of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia 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 given 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 considered and disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is not liable to be quashed.
On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, three clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, nine 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 19.08.2014 passed in M.H.S.Confdl No. 55/2014 by the first respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Krishnan, Son of Arumugam at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.