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 Cr.M.P. No. 24/2014 (Sand Offender), dated 28.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name S. Anand, Son of Samudram and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Rajpalayam North 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. 40 of 2012, Rajpalayam North Police Station registered under Sections 379 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No. 257 of 2013, Rajpalayam North Police Station registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 21(i)(A)(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
(iii) Crime No. 623 of 2013, Rajpalayam North Police Station registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21(i)(A)(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
(iv) Crime No. 769 of 2013, Rajpalayam North Police Station registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21(i)(A)(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
(v) Crime No. 14 of 2014, Rajpalayam North Police Station registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21(i)(A)(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 19.11.2014, one Mariappan, Village Administrative Officer as complainant has given a complaint to the Inspector of Police, Rajapalayam North Police Station against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No. 573 of 2014 under Sections 379, 294(b), 353 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 21(i)(A)(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 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 ''Sand Offender'' 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 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/detenu has contended that on the side of the petitioner/detenu two 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 petitioner/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 proforma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, seven clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, six clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, twelve 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 petitioner/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 Cr.M.P. No. 24/2014 (Sand Offender), dated 28.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the petitioner/detenu viz., S. Anand, Son of Samudram at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.