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 No. 37/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 09.08.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Manikandaprabhu, Son of Ramu and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, C3 S.S. Colony 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. 691 of 2013, B6 Jaihindpuram Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 @ Sections 147, 148, 341, 307, 212, 109, 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3 of Tamil Nadu Properties (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992.
(ii) Crime No. 890 of 2013, C2 Subramaniapuram Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 13.05.2014, one Tamilarasi, Wife of Andiappan has given a complaint against the detenu to the Inspector of Police, C3 S.S. Colony Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No. 633 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 and 109 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 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 detenu himself 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 two representations have been given and the same have not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representations submitted on the side of the detenu have been duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not require any interference.
On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, four clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, four clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such 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 09.08.2014 passed in No. 37/BDFGISSV/2014, by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Manikandaprabhu, Son of Ramu at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.