V. G. SABHAHIT, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a petition under article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for a writ in the nature of habeas corpus declaring the detention of naga alias nagaraja alias huccha nagaraja alias makali naga by order No. 103 mag (3) dtn 99, dated 17-12-1999 (Annexure-A) and confirmed by respondent 2 by order bearing No. Hd 390 sst 99, dated 28-12-1999 and further confirmed in hd 390 sst 99, dated 10-2-2000 (Annexure-D) as illegal and void ab initio.

( 2 ) IT is averred in the petition that petitioner is the wife of the detenu, she has filed the petition as she is concerned with the personal liberty of the detenu. The detention order is illegal and detenu has been falsely implicated in pursuance to false cases foisted against him. It is averred that the order of detention is illegal as the detenu has not been purportedly furnished the grounds of detention, order of detention and material relied upon in passing the detention order as required under article 22 of the Constitution of india. The grounds of detention furnished to the detenu is produced as annexure-b. It is averred inter alia that the order of detention is vitiated for the reason that the bail application and the detailed order granting bail in crime No. 335 of 1999 which incident has been relied upon in passing the order of detention and which was" required to have been necessarily placed and considered by the detaining authority has not been so done and the failure in that behalf vitiates the detention order rendering the detention illegal and unconstitutional.

( 3 ) NOTICE was issued to the respondents and the state public prosecutor accepted notice for the respondents and the counter-affidavit of the first respondent is filed by the state public prosecutor. It is averred that detention is legal and the detention order has been passed in accordance with law. It is specifically averred in para 9 of the counter-affidavit that he has not relied upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999 while passing the order of detention. But he has relied upon the charge- sheet filed in crime No. 335 of 1999 of peenya police station, which goes to show that there is ample material against the detenu in the said crime and the matter is pending trial before the court in cc No. 1409 of 1999. As he did not rely upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999, he did not furnish the copy of order of bail passed in crime no. 335 of 1999 to the detenu and wherefore, the failure to place the order of bail before the detaining authority and failure to consider the same and non-furnishing of order of bail could not vitiate the proceedings. It is further averred that bail orders are not relevant to be considered by the authority acting under Section 3 of the act. Consequently, he did not rely upon the order of bail granted in crime No. 335 of 1999.

( 4 ) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned state public prosecutor.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in crime No. 335 of 1999 and non-supply of the application for bail and the order granting bail would vitiate entire proceedings as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of abdul sathar ibrahim manik v union of India and others and the decision of this court in dileep kumar kunnepalli naduvilapatt v state of Karnataka and another.

( 6 ) THE learned state public prosecutor contended that, in view of the averments made in the counter-affidavit the bail order passed in crime No. 335 of 1999 has not been relied upon by the detaining authority and wherefore, question of supplying the copy of the same would not arise and he submitted that the detaining authority has only relied upon the charge-sheet filed in crime No. 335 of 1999 and therefore, the detention is legal and not vitiated as contended by the petitioner.

( 7 ) HAVING regard to the contention of the par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document