9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 406X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent has filed counter affidavit. 3. The grounds urged in the affidavit filed in support of the habeas corpus petition are, (i) The documents relied on/referred to in the detention order are not furnished to the detenue in spite of the specific request made to the respondents viz., copy of the FIR in Crime No. 100/95 on the file of Kallidaikurichi Police Station registered under Section 307 IPC, and FIR in Crime No. 145/95 on the file of Veeravanallur Police Station registered under Section 302 IPC, due to which the detenu was not able to make effective representation to revoke the order of detention. (ii) There is delay in communicating the order of detention which has not been explained. (iii) The intimation to appear bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , he will further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the public order. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner addressed the above grounds and also cited certain decisions in support of his contentions. We have also heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 6. In the grounds of detention the detaining authority has stated that FIR in Crime No. 100/1995 registered under section 307 IPC on 22.5.1995 on the file of the Kallidaikurichi Police Station and Crime No. 144/1995 under Section 302 IPC registered on 27.7.1995 on the file of Veeravanallur Police Station are mentioned. Copy of the said FIRs were sought for by the petitioner/detenu's mother vide repr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts and other materials relied upon in the grounds of detention without any undue delay flows directly as a necessary corollary from the right conferred on the detenu to be afforded the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the detention, because unless the former right is available , the latter cannot be meaningfully exercised. This would seem to be clear on a fair interpretation of clause (5) of Article 22 but apart from this view which we are inclined to take on principle as a matter of interpretation, the law is now well settled as a result of several decisions of this Court commencing from Ramachandra A. Kamath v. Union of India (1980) 2 SCC 270 : (AIR 1980 SC 765) that: When the grounds of detention are served on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry Board. In the decision of this Court reported in 2002 (1) CTC 477 (Dharman v. State of Tamil Nadu) giving only two days time to make effective representation was found as insufficient time to make proper and effective representation and on that ground the habeas corpus petition was allowed. Thus the said ground is also held in favour of the detenu. 9. The fourth ground urged by the learned counsel for the detenu is that the order of detention was not informed to the family members of the detenu. The same is not disputed in the counter affidavit. The said question was considered by this Court in the decision reported in (2008) 1 MLJ (Crl) 229 (Anitha v. State of Tamil Nadu) and in paragraph 9 it is held thus, 9. The object and purpo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
