2003 (12) TMI 683 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the arrest of the detenu.
2. Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
3. Validity of the detention and the remedy available.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the arrest of the detenu:
The detenu was arrested on 11.4.2003 under various sections of the IPC and the Arms Act, and later, the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (P.O.T.A.) was invoked. The petitioner argued that the arrest was conducted without following mandatory requirements, making the custody illegal. The petitioner specifically highlighted that the detenu was not informed of the reasons for his arrest at the time of arrest, which is a clear violation of his guaranteed rights.

2. Compliance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India:
Article 22(1) mandates that no person shall be detained without being informed of the grounds for such arrest. The petitioner argued that the detenu was not informed of the reasons for his arrest, and the respondents failed to counter this claim effectively. The court found that the detenu was indeed arrested without being informed of the reasons, both at the time of his initial arrest and when he was subsequently arrested under a different case number.

3. Validity of the detention and the remedy available:
The court examined whether the failure to inform the detenu of the reasons for his arrest rendered the custody illegal. It referred to several Supreme Court judgments, including Makhan Singh V. State Of Punjab (AIR 1952 SC 27) and Ram Narayan Singh V. State Of Delhi (AIR 1953 SC 277), which emphasized that deprivation of personal liberty must strictly follow the procedure established by law. The court concluded that the failure to comply with Article 22(1) made the arrest and subsequent custody illegal. The court also noted that the subsequent remand orders could not cure the constitutional infirmities arising from the initial illegal arrest.

Conclusion:
The court held that the detenu's arrest and custody were illegal due to the violation of Article 22(1) of the Constitution. However, instead of granting unconditional release, the court directed the release of the detenu on bail with specific conditions. The detenu was required to furnish a bond and sureties, report to the Special Court regularly, and not leave the jurisdiction without permission. The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed on these terms.