The court upheld the interpretation of five days under Section 8(1) as five 24-hour periods, confirming compliance with statutory requirements in preventive detention cases.

ORDER

DR.G.JAYACHANDRAN,J.

and C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

The petitioner is the brother of the detenu by name Sudalai Kannu @ Durai. The detention order dated 13.09.2023 is under challenge on three grounds. The first ground is that the ground case was registered on 14.08.2023 for the offence under Sections 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC and 25(1-A) of Arms Act by the Thisayanvilai Police Station in Crime No. 345 of 2023. On the same day, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody, whereas the detention order passed nearly after one month and there is no live link between the offence and the detention order. The second ground raised by the petitioner is that the likelihood of getting bail referring a case, where bail granted, is not a similar case, for which, the accused was arrested. The third point is that the booklet was served to the detenu on 18.09.2023, i.e., on the sixth day of the detention and therefore, there is a gross-violation of the mandatory provision contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 .

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the six adverse cases referred in the detention order, are of the year 2019, 2020 and 2022. The FIR was registered against the unknown person and later, the detenu was shown as the accused. These cases are not such serious nature, Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

3. The State has filed a detailed counter through the second respondent, wherein the delay in issuing the detention order being explained. According to the second respondent, since the detenu had six adverse cases in various stations in Tirunelveli District, it required time to collect details and prepare the paper book regarding the likelihood of getting bail. It is submitted that the case referred also relates to the offence under Sections 294(b) 353, 506(ii) IPC, wherein the Principal Sessions Court, Tirunelveli has granted bail. Hence, the likelihood and the real possibility of getting bail would arise. Regarding violation of Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 , the contra view of two Division Benches of this Court has been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding reckoning of five days period. In this case, the petitioner was detained and was arrested and sent to judicial custody on 14.08.2023 and when he was in the prison, the detention order dated 13.09.2023 was served on the detenu on the same day in the prison at 16.55 hours. The booklet was served on him on 18.09.2023 at 11.00 a.m. The detenu had affixed his signature with time. The five days time contemplated under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 , should be construed literally and the five days time for the State must be considered as five 24 hours. If any other interpretation through the Section is applied, then the State will be shortage of five 24 hours. This Court is fully in agreement with the above submission.

4. This Court, on perusal of records, finds that in all six adverse cases, the petitioner has been granted bail and however one after another, he had been indulged in chain-snatching robbery and theft. His modes operandi has also been explained in the detention order. In the ground case, when the police was on patrol, the police were threatened when they tried to apprehend him. The nearby shop owners got terrified by the act of the detenu and they closed their shops and ran away from the place. This Court also finds that from the time of serving the detention order, the limitation of five days time under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 has to be reckoned and the five days has to be taken into account as 5 X 24 hours. If it so taken, the booklet has been served within the time prescribed and therefore, there is no violation of Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 . The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in connection with 60 days/90 days for considering default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. m