Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, M.JOTHIRAMAN, JJ
Selvi – Appellant
Versus
The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. preventive detention order sought to be quashed. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. claim of inordinate delay in detention issuance. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. legal precedents on delay and its impact. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. court's decision to quash detention order. (Para 8) |
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.JOTHIRAMAN, J.)
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings C.O.C.No.37/2024 dated 21.11.2024 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 the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an inordinate delay in passing the order of detention.
4. In the instant case, the detenu was arrested on 17.10.2024 and thereafter, the detention order came to be passed on 21.11.2024. This fact is not disputed by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.
5. In the case of ' Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura '
reported in '2022 LiveLaw (SC) 813', when there was an inordinate delay from the date of proposal till passing of the detention order and likewis
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
