9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge to detention order under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act based on non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Analysis: 1. The judgment concerns a challenge to a detention order under the Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act against an individual involved in criminal activities. The detenu was labeled as a Goonda and detained under Section 3 of the Act based on his alleged involvement in various criminal cases, including offenses under the Indian Penal Code. Additionally, an incident where the detenu snatched money from an individual was cited as a reason for his detention. 2. The petitioner's counsel raised a crucial point regarding the non-application of mind by the detaining authority in making the detention order. The counsel pointed out discrepancies in the grounds of detention related to the timing of the incident. The grounds mentioned the incident occurring at 6:00 p.m., while the actual report indicated the incident happening at 6:00 a.m. The counsel argued that this discrepancy demonstrated a lack of attention to detail by the detaining authority, as the shops would not be open at 6:00 a.m., contradicting the claim that they closed due to fear. 3. The Additional Public Prosecutor attempted to justify the error as a typographical mistake, but the court rejected this explanation. The court emphasized that there was a significant difference between 6:00 a.m. and 1800 hours, which indicated a clear lack of application of mind by the detaining authority. The court concluded that such a fundamental error undermined the credibility of the detention order and ordered the quashing of the order. The detenu was directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case, highlighting the importance of proper application of mind in such serious legal proceedings.
|
