9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (10) TMI 51 - SC - Indian LawsDetention of detenue - Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal - snapping the live and proximate link between the prejudicial activities - failure on the part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay - suppression of facts - vital fact of the appellant detenu being released on bail in both the cases was suppressed or rather not brought to the notice of the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority at the time of forwarding the proposal to pass the appropriate order of preventive detention. Delay in passing the order of detention - HELD THAT - It becomes very imperative on the part of the detaining authority as well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in passing the detention order at the earliest from the date of the proposal and executing the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings - The adverse effect of delay in arresting a detenu has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and this Court has laid down the rule in clear terms that an unreasonable and unexplained delay in securing a detenu and detaining him vitiates the detention order. In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of detention with greater promptitude. The live and proximate link between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay has not been explained in any manner though this point of delay was specifically raised argued before the High Court, yet the High Court has not recorded any finding on the same. Material or vital fact withheld and not placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority - HELD THAT - The accused arrested under the NDPS Act, 1985 can be ordered to be released on bail only if the Court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail. If the appellant herein was ordered to be released on bail despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, then the same is suggestive that the Court concerned might not have found any prima facie case against him. Had this fact been brought to the notice of the detaining authority, then it would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the question whether or not to make an order of detention. The State never thought to even challenge the bail orders passed by the special court releasing the appellant on bail. The requisite subjective satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and influence his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order - The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance and must be strictly adhered to. The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Tripura is set aside. The order of preventive detention passed by the State of Tripura dated 12.11.2021 is hereby quashed and set aside - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Delay in passing the order of detention. 2. Failure to consider the fact that the appellant was released on bail in both criminal cases. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Delay in passing the order of detention: The proposal for the detention of the appellant was submitted by the Superintendent of Police on 28th June 2021, and the detention order was passed on 12th November 2021. The Supreme Court noted that there was no explanation for the nearly five-month delay in passing the detention order. This delay was critical because it snapped the "live and proximate link" between the appellant's prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention. The Court emphasized that the purpose of preventive detention is to intercept and prevent a person from engaging in harmful activities, and any delay in passing the detention order would defeat this purpose. The Court cited several precedents, including Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration, Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, and Bhawarlal Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, to underline the importance of prompt action in preventive detention cases. The Court concluded that the unexplained delay in this case rendered the detention order invalid. 2. Failure to consider the fact that the appellant was released on bail in both criminal cases: The Supreme Court found that the detaining authority was not informed that the appellant had been released on bail in both criminal cases cited as grounds for detention. This omission was significant because the appellant's release on bail suggested that the Special Court did not find a prima facie case against him, despite the stringent conditions under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The Court noted that this material fact was not presented to the detaining authority, which could have influenced its decision to issue the detention order. The Court referred to precedents such as Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Gujarat and Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, which held that withholding vital facts from the detaining authority vitiates the subjective satisfaction required for passing a detention order. The Court concluded that the failure to disclose the appellant's bail status rendered the detention order invalid. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on both grounds: the unexplained delay in passing the detention order and the failure to inform the detaining authority about the appellant's release on bail. The Court quashed the detention order and directed the appellant's immediate release from custody, provided he was not required in any other case. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural safeguards in preventive detention cases to protect personal liberty.
|
