9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Delay in passing the detention order. 2. Non-supply of crucial documents for effective representation. Analysis: 1. The petition involves a Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking the release of the petitioner's brother who was detained under the COFEPOSA Act. The detention was based on an incident at Delhi Airport involving the recovery of gold biscuits from another individual. The petitioner raised objections regarding the delay in passing the detention order, highlighting an eight-month gap between the incident and the order. The grounds of detention were served a month after the order, leading to concerns about the unsatisfactorily explained delay. The petitioner contended that the delay was unjustified, impacting the legality of the detention. 2. Another significant contention was the non-supply of essential documents to the detenu for effective representation. The detenu requested copies of specific documents, including an anticipatory bail application and order, a blank sheet with his signature, and a visiting card recovered from another individual's premises. These documents were crucial as they were relied upon by the detaining authority in ordering the detention. Despite the detenu's representation, the documents were not provided, depriving him of the opportunity for a meaningful defense. The failure to supply these materials undermined the detenu's ability to challenge the grounds of detention effectively. 3. The court, after considering the objections raised by the petitioner, concluded that the detention order should be set aside due to the undue delay in passing the order and the denial of effective representation through the non-supply of critical documents. The judgment referenced a similar case where identical contentions were raised and addressed by the court, emphasizing the importance of providing all relevant documents to the detenu for a fair process. The court found no satisfactory explanation for the delay in detention and affirmed that the detenu's continued detention was unjustified. As a result, the court made the rule absolute, directing the immediate release of the detenu unless there existed another valid legal justification for his detention.
|
