9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (8) TMI 298X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged the detention by way of habeas corpus petitions before the Tamil Nadu High Court. By a common judgment dated February 5, 1992, the High Court allowed both the petitions and quashed the detention orders. These appeals, by way of special leave petitions, are by the State of Tamil Nadu against the judgment of the High Court. 3. Both the detenus were reported in the records of the District Magistrate as habitual criminals having history- sheet of committing various crimes. The occurrence which has been made the ground-case in the detention orders, is alleged to have taken place on November 25, 1991 at 3.00 p.m. It is not necessary for us to go into details of the said occurrence, suffice it to say that the detenus allegedly committed vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... telegrams to the effect that the detenus were taken in police custody at 11.00 a.m. are correct, then the detenus could not have participated in any occurrence at 3.00 p.m. on the same day. The High Court, therefore, came to the conclusion that the telegrams sent on behalf of the detenus were relevant and vital material which should have been placed before the detaining authority. Since the grounds of detention did not disclose that the District Magistrate had taken the telegrams into consideration, the detention was vitiated. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the detention on this short ground. 5. We do not agree with the reasoning and the conclusions reached by the High Court. 6. The detenus filed bail applicatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion have been furnished to the detenu. Hence, the contention to the contrary is not sustainable in law and is denied. 8. Learned Advocate-General appearing for the State of Tamil Nadu has taken us through the grounds of detention. It has been mentioned in para 3 of the grounds that the bail application filed on behalf of the detenus was dismissed by 62 the Judicial Magistrate, Thanjavur on November 26, 199 1. It is thus obvious that the District Magistrate had applied his mind to the bail application which contained the averment that the detenus were arrested by the police at 11.30 a.m. on November 25, 1991. The District Magistrate had before him the case of the detenus that they were arrested by the police at 11.00/1 1.30 a.m. I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hority. 10. The High Court was, therefore, not justified in quashing the detention orders on the ground discussed above. We set aside the reasoning and conclusions reached by the High Court on the above said issue. 11. The detenus were released, as a result of the High Court judgment, in February 1992. We are of the view that it would not be in the interest of justice - due to lapse of time - to detain the respondents for undergoing the remaining period of detention under the impugned detention orders. We, therefore, direct that the impugned detention orders shall not be further executed as a result of our judgment. It would, however, be open for the detaining authority to consider afresh, keeping in view the present circumstances ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
