9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (8) TMI 1541 - HC - Indian LawsDetention order - petitioner branded as a Goonda - non-consideration of the documents available on record before passing the orders of detention - delay in considering the representations by the statutory authorities - plea of petitioners is that the cases were fabricated by the police in connivance with the local Minister to see that the detenus are confined in prison during the time of Assembly election - attestation of affidavits of the Sponsoring Authority - Nature of Jurisdiction - Unexplained delay renders detention illegal - Bail granted to the accused in similar cases - Non-application of mind - Confusion with regard to adverse case and ground case. The attestation of Affidavits of the Sponsoring Authority by detaining authority indicates predetermination - HELD THAT - The sponsoring authority is at liberty to make a request to the Detaining Authority to detain the accused. Mere affidavit is not sufficient. The sponsoring authority must produce materials before the Detaining Authority to show that the detenu is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, he should be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Here, in this case, the authority empowered to detain, himself acted as the complainant by attesting the affidavit of the sponsoring authority. Nature of Jurisdiction - HELD THAT - The Detaining Authority should act independently and with an open mind. He should not prejudge the issue even before considering the materials produced before him by the sponsoring authority - In the subject cases, it is clear that the Commissioner of Police actively took part in the process of sponsoring the case of the detenus for detention. The affidavits of the sponsoring officers were attested by the Commissioner of Police by sitting in the armchair of the Detaining Authority. He was, therefore, in the know of things, even before the commencement of statutory proceedings for detention. In short, the Commissioner of Police himself was part of the team of complainants otherwise called as sponsoring authorities. Thereafter, he turned the chair and acted in a different capacity as the Detaining Authority. The sponsoring authority and Detaining Authority are practically one and the same in all these matters. The active participation of the Detaining Authority in the process of sponsoring the name of the detenus for detention would go to the root of the matter and, therefore, is sufficient to set aside the orders of detention on the ground of pre-determination - the detention orders are unsustainable in law. Unexplained delay renders detention illegal - HELD THAT - The background facts very clearly show that the Minister for Electricity, who was given the authority to consider the representations of the detenus, slept over the issue for days together. The learned Additional Advocate General has given a reason that the Minister himself was a candidate and as such, the matter was delayed. We are not inclined to accept the said submission. In fact, even the Government or Detaining Authority have no such case. The Minister, as a delegate of the Government, was required to consider the representations as expeditiously as possible with all seriousness. The fact that the Minister himself was a candidate cannot be a valid reason to keep the representations pending indefinitely - It is trite that the number of days delay alone are not material. It is the cause for delay which is material. There was no genuine attempt made either by the Detaining Authority or by the Government to explain the inordinate delay in the disposal of the representations submitted by the detenus - the impugned Detention Orders are liable to be quashed on the ground of unexplained delay in considering the representations and its disposal. Bail granted to the accused in similar cases - HELD THAT - In the subject cases, bail granted to the accused in Crime No.1273 of 2013 was taken as the basis to arrive at a satisfaction that the detenus are likely to be released on bail. The bail granted to the accused Balamurugan has nothing to do with the cases registered against the detenus. Thiru.Balamurugan is not a co-accused. The Detaining Authority considered irrelevant materials to arrive at a satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenus being released on bail. The impugned Detention Orders are liable to be quashed on this ground also. Non-application of mind - HELD THAT - The materials available on record would show that the accused were produced on PT warrant. However, in the confession statements, the Inspector of Police made a statement as if the detenus appeared before him on summons. The statement of the Inspector of Police in the respective confession statements goes against the other documents evidencing the production of the accused on PT warrant. The Detaining Authority failed to consider any of these documents and contradictions and signed the Detention Orders in a routine manner. Confusion with regard to adverse case and ground case - HELD THAT - When the orders of detention were passed, the detenus were in jail. There are no acceptable materials to show that the detenus would be released on bail or there was such a possibility of their release. The Detaining Authority, on the basis of the so-called similar case registered against another accused in an altogether different case, observed that there is a possibility of the detenus being released on bail. In short, there were no cogent materials before the Detaining Authority to satisfy that the detenus were likely to be released on bail. The mere statement of the Detaining Authority that there is a likelihood of the detenus being released on bail alone is not sufficient. There should be supporting materials available on record. There are no such materials in the subject cases - the Detention Orders are liable to be quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Predetermination by the Detaining Authority. 2. Delay in considering representations. 3. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority. 4. Use of irrelevant materials for detention. 5. Confusion between adverse case and ground case. 6. Bail granted to the accused in similar cases. Detailed Analysis: Predetermination by the Detaining Authority: The affidavits requesting the detention of the detenus were prepared and attested by the Commissioner of Police, who later passed the detention orders. This conduct indicates predetermination and bias, as the Commissioner acted both as the sponsoring authority and the Detaining Authority. The affidavits were attested in the immediate presence of the Commissioner, suggesting a lack of independent consideration. Delay in Considering Representations: There were significant delays in considering the representations made by the detenus, which were not adequately explained. For instance, in H.C.P.(MD)No.556 of 2016, there was a delay of 6 days and another 17 days in considering representations. Similar unexplained delays were noted in other petitions. The Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay in considering representations renders the detention illegal. Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority: The Detaining Authority failed to consider contradictions in the documents, such as the production of accused on PT warrant versus their voluntary appearance as stated in confession statements. There was a clear non-application of mind, as the Detaining Authority did not scrutinize the materials independently. Use of Irrelevant Materials for Detention: The Detaining Authority used bail granted to an accused in an unrelated case (Crime No.1273 of 2013) to justify the likelihood of the detenus being released on bail. The Supreme Court has clarified that similar cases must involve co-accused in the same offence to be relevant. The use of irrelevant cases indicates a flawed basis for detention. Confusion between Adverse Case and Ground Case: There was a mix-up in identifying the adverse case and ground case. The adverse case was incorrectly mentioned as the incident on 10 January 2016, while the ground case was the incident on 09 January 2016. This confusion was not addressed by the Detaining Authority, further demonstrating non-application of mind. Bail Granted to the Accused in Similar Cases: The Detaining Authority's reliance on bail granted in unrelated cases to predict the release of the detenus was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court has ruled that the possibility of bail alone is insufficient for detention unless there are credible reasons and supporting materials. Conclusion: The High Court quashed the detention orders in all the Habeas Corpus Petitions due to predetermination by the Detaining Authority, unexplained delays in considering representations, non-application of mind, use of irrelevant materials, confusion between adverse and ground cases, and improper reliance on bail granted in unrelated cases. The detenus were ordered to be released forthwith, provided they were not required for detention in any other case.
|
