9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved
1. Non-supply of documents to the detenu. 2. Detenu's previous arrest and its non-consideration by the detaining authority. 3. Validity of the detention order given the detenu's existing custody. Summary Non-supply of Documents The first contention by the appellant-petitioner was that certain documents referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu, thereby denying him a proper and reasonable opportunity to make an effective representation. This included a report from a fingerprint expert and a note sent to the media. The respondents argued that even if some documents were not supplied, the detention order could still be sustained on the remaining grounds as per section 5A of the National Security Act, 1980. The Court did not express a concluded opinion on this point as the detention order was quashed on another contention. Detenu's Previous Arrest The second contention was that the detenu was apprehended and detained prior to the date shown in the detention order, and this fact was not placed before the detaining authority. The Court found that the newspaper reports indicating the detenu's earlier arrest were not relevant for the satisfaction needed to justify making the detention order. The detaining authority was aware of the detenu's custody before the order was made, and thus this contention was rejected. Validity of Detention Order Given Existing Custody The last contention was based on the fact that the detenu was already in custody in connection with the Bank dacoity when the detention order was made. The Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in *Rameshwar Shaw v. District Magistrate, Burdwan* and subsequent cases, reiterating that a detention order can be valid even if the detenu is already in custody, provided the detaining authority is aware of this fact and there is a likelihood of the detenu's release. In this case, the detention order did not indicate any apprehension of the detenu being released on bail. The Court concluded that the detention order was invalid as it did not satisfy the test indicated by the Constitution Bench, leading to the quashing of the detention order and its confirmation by the State Government. Conclusion The Supreme Court quashed the detention order dated 7.9.1988 and the confirmation order dated 25.10.1988, allowing the appeal and the writ petition. The judgment clarified that this decision would not affect the detenu's custody in connection with the criminal case u/s 397 I.P.C. and allowed for the possibility of reconsidering preventive detention if the detenu is released in the criminal case.
|
