9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (12) TMI 1363 - SC - Indian LawsPrinciples of Habeas Corpus - Validity of Detention Order - Section 3 (1)(a)of the National Security Act 1980 - detention order challenged mainly on the ground that the detenu was detained on the solitary ground case and the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining authority to show that either the detenu himself or his relatives have taken any step to file bail application in a solitary ground case - Whether if the impugned order passed by the High Court is quashed can the detenu be then asked to undergo the remaining period of detention? HELD THAT - The impugned order passed by the High Court quashing the order of detention on solitary ground case is erroneous in law. The detenu was taken into custody in September 2012 and the order of detention was passed in December 2012. The said order of detention was finally quashed by the High Court in terms of Order dated 26.4.2013. Apparently therefore a long time has lapsed inasmuch as the period of detention fixed in the order of detention has already expired in April 2014. Even if the impugned order passed by the High Court is set aside the detenu cannot and shall not be taken into custody for serving the remaining period of detention unless there still exist materials to the satisfaction of the detaining authority for putting him under detention. In other words initial detention order having been expired long back it is for the detaining authority to take a decision in accordance with law. The impugned order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention on a solitary ground case. 2. Subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of bail. 3. Requirement for the detenu to undergo the remaining period of detention after the High Court's quashing of the detention order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Legality of Detention on a Solitary Ground Case: The appellant challenged the High Court's decision to quash the detention order under Section 3(1)(a) of the National Security Act, 1980, which was based on a solitary ground case. The High Court held that the satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail was vitiated in law. The appellant relied on precedents like *Shiv Ratan Makim vs. Union of India* and *Union of India & Anr. vs. Chhaya Ghosal & Anr.*, arguing that detention on a solitary ground is permissible if sufficient material is available. The Supreme Court referenced these cases, emphasizing that the number of incidents is not as crucial as the impact and effect of the act. Thus, detention based on a single incident can be justified if the act's consequences are significant. 2. Subjective Satisfaction of the Detaining Authority: The High Court quashed the detention order, stating that there was no material to show that the detenu or his relatives were taking steps to file a bail application. The Supreme Court disagreed, citing *Haradhan Saha vs. State of West Bengal*, which clarified that preventive detention is a precautionary measure based on reasonable anticipation and not necessarily linked to an ongoing prosecution. The Supreme Court also referred to *Ahamed Nassar vs. State of Tamil Nadu*, explaining that the detaining authority can infer the likelihood of bail based on the nature of the crime and other circumstances, even if no bail application is pending. Therefore, the detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the imminent possibility of bail was deemed valid. 3. Requirement for the Detenu to Undergo Remaining Period of Detention: The detenu had been in custody since September 2012, and the detention order was passed in December 2012. The High Court quashed the order in April 2013. The Supreme Court considered whether the detenu should undergo the remaining period of detention if the High Court's order is set aside. Citing *Sunil Fulchand Shah vs. Union of India*, the Court noted that the decision to require the detenu to serve the remaining detention period depends on factors like the lapse of time and the continued relevance of the grounds for detention. Since a significant time had passed and the original detention period had expired, the Supreme Court held that the detaining authority must reassess the necessity of further detention. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order quashing the detention, emphasizing that the detaining authority's satisfaction regarding the likelihood of bail was valid and that detention on a solitary ground case is legally permissible. However, the Court directed that the detaining authority must reconsider the necessity of further detention, given the lapse of time and the expiration of the original detention period.
|
