9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in submission of the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority. 2. Delay in passing the detention order. 3. Non-supply of statements of the co-accused. 4. Non-consideration of retractions of statements. 5. Rejection of representation by the Detaining Authority. Summary: Issue 1: Delay in Submission of Proposal by Sponsoring Authority The petitioner challenged the detention order on the ground of inordinate delay in submission of the proposal by the Sponsoring Authority. The detenu was arrested on 25/3/2010 and released on bail on 23/4/2010. The proposal was submitted on 15/9/2010. The court found that the delay between 26/8/2010 to 15/9/2010 and from 16/9/2010 to 11/10/2010 was not explained with justifiable reasons, thus vitiating the detention order. Issue 2: Delay in Passing the Detention Order The detention order dated 11/2/2011 was also challenged for delay. The proposal was received by the Detaining Authority on 12/10/2010 but scrutinized only on 15/11/2010. The delay from 12/10/2010 to 15/11/2010 was unexplained. Further delays from 23/11/2010 to 14/12/2010 and from 21/12/2010 onwards were also not satisfactorily explained. These delays rendered the detention order stale and vitiated. Issue 3: Non-Supply of Statements of Co-Accused The detention order was based on statements of the co-accused recorded on 24/3/2010, 12/5/2010, and 22/6/2010, but copies of these statements were not provided to the detenu `pari passu' along with the grounds of detention. This deprived the detenu of making an effective representation under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, thus vitiating the detention order. Issue 4: Non-Consideration of Retractions of Statements The detenu's statements recorded on various dates were retracted at the earliest opportunity, but the detention order did not reflect these retractions. The court held that the failure to consider these retractions and the reply to the show cause notice dated 16/9/2010 vitiated the detention order. Issue 5: Rejection of Representation by the Detaining Authority The representation submitted to the Detaining Authority was rejected on 24/4/2011. However, the affidavit-in-reply stated that the representation was under consideration, indicating that the Detaining Authority was not aware of the representation. This denied the detenu a valuable right of effective representation. Conclusion: The court quashed and set aside the detention order dated 11th February 2011 on the grounds of unexplained delays, failure to provide copies of statements of the co-accused, and failure to consider retractions of statements. The detenu was ordered to be released forthwith unless required to be detained in any other case.
|
