AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This is a typical case, where the order passed by the detention authority does not disclose the nature of commission of the last prejudicial activity by the detenu except stating that on 09.06.2023 he was involved in a crime. What was its nature, how it affected public order etc., are all absent in the order.
It is to be remembered that in every detention order, the nature of commission of offence will have to be referred to, in order to come to the conclusion that those offences will have a ramification of public order. The nature of offence and the public order are the elements for passing the detention order, not mere registration of an offence under penal law. The intention of the detention order is to prevent repetition of the offence as his future actions may result in vitiating public order. If there is no application of mind as to the nature of commission of the offence to hold that it would vitiate public order, that order is legally unsustainable. In this case, it is so evident from the order passed by the detention authority.
We also note that the last prejudicial activity was on 09.06.2023. The sponsoring authority filed its report only on 01.09.2023. It is to be noted that the complainant in respect of the last prejudicial activity is the Station House Officer, who alleged to have witnessed a brandishing of a weapon by the detenu in a public place (This is the version of the learned Public Prosecutor, not found in the impugned order). We are not able to understand why there was so much delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in reporting the matter to the detention authority. Such a delay is vital, which, according to us, resulted in snapping of live link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order.
In such circumstances, the impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.
The WP(Crl) is allowed accordingly.