Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, R. SAKTHIVEL
Durga – Appellant
Versus
Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department – Respondent
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order B3/D.O.No.52/2024 dated 08.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce namely Arul son of Srinivasan, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.07.2024 is sought to be assailed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The ground case and three adverse cases relied on are registered under Section 379 of IPC. All the criminal cases registered are relating to stealing of two wheelers. Three adverse cases also relating to theft of two wheelers and the ground case also similar in nature.
3. The veracity and nature of the crime both in ground case and adverse case would be insufficient to detain a person under preventive detention law. Such cases can be dealt with under the penal law and the Police Authorities have to file a charge sheet and proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible in such c
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of registered criminal cases; there must be a clear and present danger to public order.
Preventive detention requires a clear and justifiable connection between the individual's actions and a threat to public order, beyond merely having a criminal case registered against them.
Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear and immediate threat to public order, and reliance on remote past cases is insufficient to uphold such detention.
Preventive detention must be justified by a direct and proximate connection to the likelihood of a breach of public order; reliance on remote past cases is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.
The unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can render a preventive detention order invalid.
The absence of the alleged offense of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in issuing the preventive detention order, leading to its di....
The unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can invalidate a preventive detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the unacceptability of ....
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
