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 M.H.S. Confdl No. 38/2014, dated 02.07.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name S.Udayakumar, Son of Sivanaiya Konar, and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Kadayanallur 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. 115 of 2014, Chokkampatti Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 307, 506(ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No. 141 of 2014, Chokkampatti Police Station registered under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 10.06.2014, one Shunmugavelu has given a complaint in Kadayanallur Police Station against the detenu and others and the same has been registered in Crime No. 198 of 2014 under Sections 341, 294(b) 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 wife of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a 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 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 the representations submitted on the side of the detenu are duly considered and disposed of without delay and therefore the detention order in question need not be quashed.
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. 7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, two clear working days are available and with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, two clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, five clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such 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 M.H.S. Confdl No. 38/2014, dated 02.07.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., S.Udayakumar, Son of Sivanaiya Konar, at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.