AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to the detention
order passed in Memo No.186/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 15.04.2017, against the detenu by name, Mohan, aged 30 years, S/o.Mani, No.13,
Sidhi Vinayakar Koil Street, Srilakshmi Nagar, Maduravoyal, Chennai - 600 095 and quash the same.
The Inspector of Police, T-4, Maduravoyal Police Station, as Sponsoring Authority, has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority,
wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:
i) T4 Maduravoyal Police Station, Crime No.898 of 2016, registered under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code, altered to Sections 120(b), 201,
302 r/w. 34 of Indian Penal Code.
Further it is averred that in the affidavit that on 08.03.2017, one Adhikesavan, S/o.Subramanian, residing at No.18, Om Sakthi Nagar,
Vanagaram, Chennai-95, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint in T4 Maduravoyal Police Station wherein it is stated to the effect that in
the place of occurrence the detenu has forcibly taken a sum of Rs.1700/- from the cash box of the defacto complainant by showing a deadly
weapon and under such circumstances, a case has been registered in Crime No.459 of 2017 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and
506(ii) of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
The Detaining Authority, after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived a subjective
satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately branded him as ""Goonda"" by way of passing the impugned Detention
Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is contended to the effect that most of the averments made in the petition
are false and the Sponsoring Authority has submitted all the relevant materials to the Detaining Authority and the Detaining Authority, after
considering all the relevant materials supplied to him and other connected papers, has derived a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu
is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned detention order and the same does not call for any
interference and therefore, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given, but
the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
Per contra, 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 contention urged on the side of the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
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, 4 clear
working days are available and in between column Nos.12 and 13, 20 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 the same 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 15.04.2017 passed in Memo No.186/BCDFGISSSV/2017 by
the second respondent against the detenu by name, Mohan, aged 30 years, S/o.Mani, No.13, Sidhi Vinayakar Koil Street, Srilakshmi Nagar,
Maduravoyal, Chennai - 600 095 is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.