Back
S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Suriya – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
ORDER :
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo No. 680/BCDFGISSSV/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent on 19.06.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce petitioner husband Ramkumar @ Kakka Ram son of Vadivel aged about 34 years, before this Court, who now detained at Central prison, Puzhal-II and set him at liberty.
1. The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 19.06.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in this petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focused mainly on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the Detaining Authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take out the detenu on bail, suffers from non-application of mind, as the statement under 161 Cr.P.C. enclosed at page no. 39 in Volume-I of the booklet served on the detenu said to have been made by
A preventive detention order is invalid if based on undated statements, as it undermines the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction and fails to meet legal standards.
Detention orders based on undated documents lack validity, as they indicate non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority, leading to quashing of such orders.
Detention orders must demonstrate application of mind and cannot rely on vague assertions; failure to disclose crucial information, such as crime numbers, vitiates the order.
The central legal point established is the requirement for a detention order to be based on cogent material and to adhere strictly to statutory provisions and constitutional guarantees.
Preventive detention requires the detaining authority to apply its mind and provide a rational basis for its decision, rather than relying on mere assertions or dissimilar cases.
Strict adherence to legal provisions and constitutional guarantees is essential in detention orders, and non-application of mind by the detaining authority can lead to the quashing of the detention o....
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Preventive detention requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
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
