Back
M. SUNDAR, M. NIRMAL KUMAR
S. Babu, S/o. Sayed Basha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Fort St. George, Secretariat Chennai-600009 – Respondent
ORDER :
[M. SUNDAR, J.]
[Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 18.05.2022 in his office ref.S.C.No.12/2022 against the petitioner's son by name Thiru.Mubarak, aged about 26 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem, Salem District and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the above said detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.]
1. Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed in this Court on 17.06.2022 by father of the detenu assailing a 'detention order dated 18.05.2022 bearing reference S.C.No.12/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the 'second respondent i.e., jurisdictional District Collector' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fifth respondent i.e., jurisdictional Inspector of Police is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Impugned detention order has been made by the Detaining Authority on the premise
The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the requirement of intimation of arrest to a near relative under Clause (5) o....
The sufficiency of subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority and the actions taken by the detenu's father in seeking bail were crucial in determining the legality of the detention order.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's right to make an effective representation as a Constitutional safeguard ingrained in Clause (5) of Arti....
The impairment of the detenu's right to make an effective representation against a preventive detention order is a violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and can lead to the setting ....
The court emphasized the importance of specific aspects of the ground case in discretionary relief of grant of bail, and the lack of support for the detaining authority's grounds.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of upholding the detenu's right to make an effective representation, as guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of Ind....
Preventive detention is not a punishment, and failure to comply with statutory requirements, such as informing the detenu's near relatives of his arrest, can vitiate a detention order.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
