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. 67/BCDFGISSSV/2014, dated 19.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Muniyasamy @ Cent Muniyasamy, aged 23 years, Son of Pitchaimani and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, B5 South Gate 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 case:
"Crime No. 336 of 2014, B5 South Gate Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code."
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 06.11.2014, one Arumugam as complainant has given a complaint in B5 South Gate Police Station against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No. 534 of 2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 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., second respondent herein after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has derived 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 Habeas Corpus 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 has been contended 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 four representations have been submitted and the same are not disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that all the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference.
On the side of the respondents, a pro forma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, three clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, three clear working days are available and with regard to third representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, four clear working days are available and with regard to fourth representation 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 huge delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the detenu and that itself would affect his rights 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 passed in No. 67/BCDFGISSSV/2014, dated 19.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Muniyasamy @ Cent Muniyasamy, Son of Pitchaimani at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.