9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (11) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... refer to them since we find that there is one ground which is sufficient to dispose of the petition. To appreciate this ground it is necessary to notice a few facts. The order of detention was made on 10th September, 1973 and it was based on the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a view to preventing him from acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies and services essential to the community. This subjective satisfaction, according to the grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner, was founded on a solitary incident of theft of aluminums wire alleged to have been committed by the petitioner on 14th April, 1973. It appears that in respect of this i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... alidation of the order of detention. It is obvious from the facts set out in the affidavit-inreply that the, petitioner-was arrested in connection with the criminal case arising out of the incident dated 14th April, 1973 set out in the grounds of detention. The criminal case was ultimately dropped as the witnesses were not willing to come forward to give evidence for fear of danger to their life and the petitioner was discharged. The date of discharge of the petitioner was, however not set out in the affidavit in-reply. We asked the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent as to whether.there was any record with him from whick he could tell us as to What was the date on which the petitioner was discharged but he stated that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... el appearing on behalf of the respondent from which he could give us the date when the petitioner was discharged. In view of this failure on the part of the respondent to supply information to the Court as to then the petitioner was discharged, we must proceed on the assumption that he must have been discharged on or about 10th September, 1973. The order of detention must have been made by the District Magistrate in anticipation of the discharge of the petitioner and the discharge of the petitioner can, therefore, be presumed to have taken place at or about the time when the order of detention was made, that is, 10th September, 1973. But if that be so, the conclusion is inescap-able that though the petitioner was available for detention sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imself, no explanation was forthcoming in this affidavit as to why the petitioner was not arrested until 23rd November, 1973, though the order of detention was made as far back as 10th September, 1973. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the State was not expected to render any explanation in regard to the delay in arresting the petitioner pursuant to the order of detention because no such complaint was made in the petition. But this is hardly an argument which can avail the State when it is called upon to answer a rule issued on a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. It is the obligation of the State or the detaining, authority in making its return to the rule in such a case to place all the relevant f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
