AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This writ petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of habeas corpus quashing the order of detention passed against her husband on 16-5-1987 by the first respondent.
The impugned order of detention has been passed under S. 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders and Slum Grabbers Act (Act 14 of 1982) with a view to preventing the detenu from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Though several grounds have been taken challenging the detention, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his argument to the question of the non-furnishing of the copy of the bail application and the bail order under which the detenu has been released on conditional bail. In the counter-affidavit it has not been denied that copy of the bail application and bail order have not been furnished to the detenu.
It has been repeatedly pointed out by the Supreme Court that along with the grounds of detention all the documents relied on by the detaining authority should be furnished to the detenu in order to enable him to make an effective representation against the order of detention. In Jean Salam v. Union of India 1987 II Cri 617, a single Judge of the Delhi High Court has held that the order of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in the bail application filed by the detenu was a material document and the failure to furnish the copy of the same is fatal to the order of detention. We respectfully agree with the same.
Inasmuch as the bail application and the bail order which have been relied on by the detaining authority, have not been furnished to the detenu, the order of detention cannot stand and has to be quashed.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.