In a habeas corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu, the Madras High Court set aside the detention order due to an unexplained abnormal delay of over a month in passing the order after arrest, directing the release of the detenu.
The order of detention was set aside and the detenu Hassain Ali was directed to be released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:05.11.2020
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.KRISHNAKUMAR
H.C.P.NO.877 OF 2020
Kaneez Zehara ... Petitioner/
Wife of the Detenue
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.
3. The Inspector of Police,
C2 Elephant Gate Police Station,
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison II, Puzhal,
Chennai - 66. ... Respondents
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 detention order in Memo No.153/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 29.02.2020 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband Thiru.Hassain Ali, S/o.Ajaam Ali, aged about 29 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's husband Hassain Ali, S/o.Ajaam Ali, aged about 29 years the detenu herein and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar
For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.153/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 29.02.2020, holding him to be a “Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
3.Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 16.01.2020, the detention order was passed only on 29.02.2020 i.e., after a considerable delay of more than one month. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside.
4.As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 16.01.2020, the order of detention came to be passed only on 29.02.2020 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of Detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu.
5.We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi/ssm
To
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay in passing the detention order of more than one month renders the order liable to be set aside in a habeas corpus petition.
Whether the detenu should be released forthwith after the detention order is quashed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kaneez Zehara
State of Tamil Nadu
M.M.Sundresh
D.Krishnakumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
