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 dated 09.08.2014 passed in No. 38/BDFGISSV/ 2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Prasanth @ Press, Son of Muthu and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, D1 Tallakulam 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. 1247 of 2013, D1 Tallakulam Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code".
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 30.05.2014 one Rajavelan, Village Administrative Officer has given a complaint, wherein the alleged involvement of the detenu in the alleged crime has been mentioned and the same has been registered in Crime No. 564 of 2014 under Section 302 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 perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 against him and thereby 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 by name Sasikala as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia 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 a representation has been given and the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly considered and disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question does not require interference.
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, four clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, two clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay and that itself 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 09.08.2014 passed in No. 38/BDFGISSV/2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Prasath @ Press, Son of Muthu at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.