S. M. SUBRAMANIAM, V. SIVAGNANAM
Vanitha – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government, 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 produce the body of the detenu by name Mathankumr, son of Vinothkumar, aged about 19 years presently confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith, after calling for the records pertaining to the detention order dated 16.06.2024 in Cr.M.P.No.57/SEXUAL OFFENDER/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent, quash the same.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 16.06.2024 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. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu was arrested on 12.05.2024 and the impugned Detention Order has been issued on 16.06.2024. Except ground case, there is no adverse case relied on by the Detaining Authority.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is a delay of more than one month in passing the detention order. Further, the similar case relied on for forming a
Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Government and Another
Preventive detention orders must be based on concrete material and timely action; delays can invalidate such orders.
Preventive detention requires subjective satisfaction linked to the facts of the case; mere reliance on dissimilar bail orders without adequate reasoning is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires reliable material for subjective satisfaction; mere assumptions or presumption of bail applications are insufficient to justify detention.
Inordinate delays in detention orders can invalidate them if they sever the link between the grounds for detention and the purpose of detention.
Preventive detention orders must be based on a proper application of mind and relevant legal principles, not mere assumptions or dissimilar cases.
Unexplained delay in preventive detention orders can invalidate the detention due to the severance of the necessary link between grounds and purpose.
Unexplained delays in preventive detention orders and representation consideration violate constitutional rights, rendering detention illegal.
Inordinate delay in passing a preventive detention order invalidates the order due to severed live and proximate link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Unexplained and inordinate delay in issuing a detention order can invalidate the order by severing the necessary link between grounds and purpose of detention.
Inordinate delay in issuing a detention order after arrest disrupts the required connection between grounds and purpose, rendering the order invalid.
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.