R. SURESH KUMAR, K. K. RAMAKRISHNAN
Susamma Baby – Appellant
Versus
State rep. , by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, by calling for the records relating to the impugned Detention Order made in Cr.M.P.No.29/2022 dated 09.07.2022 on the file of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar Ditrict, the 2nd respondent herein, branding the petitioner''s husband/detenu by name, Josephraja, son of Joseph Chellappa, aged 49 years as "Sexual Offender", who is now confined at Central Prison. Madurai and quash the same and set him at liberty by producing him before this Court.)
K.K. Ramakrishnan, J.
1. This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed by the wife of the detenu Josephraja. He is the accused in Crime No.9 of 2022 on the file of the Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Rajapalayam. The detenu/Josephraja is the Pastor in the King of King Church situated at North Malayandipatti. The victim is the physically challenged and partially mentally retarded 17 years old girl. On 03.05.2022 at 09.00 p.m, the detenu committed penetrative sexual assault upon the detenu in the said
Abdul Sathar Ibrahim Manik v. Union of India and Others
Alijan Mian v. Distt. Magistrate (3 judges Bench)
Anil Dey v. State of West Bengal
Attorney General for India and Others v Amratlal Prajivandas and Others
David Patrick Ward and Others v. Union of India and Others 1992 (4) SCC 154
Hare Ram Pandey vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 2004 (3) SCC 289
Hemlata Kantilal Shah v. State of Maharashtra
IM.Mohamed Sulthan v. Joint Secretary to Govt. of India, Finance Dept. and Others
Rajendrakumar Natvariat Shah v. State of Gujarat
Ramesh Roy v. State of West Bengal (1972)3 SCC 829)
Senthamilselvi vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. reported in (2006)5 SCC 676
The gravity and nature of the act are relevant in determining the necessity of detention under the Acts.
Preventive detention invalid without proof of public order threat; arrest grounds must be served timely under Art.22.
Preventive detention under the National Security Act requires clear justification of public order disturbances, adherence to procedural safeguards, and can be validated by prior criminal history.
Preventive detention orders are invalidated if the detaining authority fails to supply legible copies of relied-upon documents, preventing an effective representation, or fails to record subjective s....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.