9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (4) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xure P-1 based on the solitary incident of 21-9-1988 incorporated in the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 was clamped upon him. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 250 of 1989, the detenu-petitioner has challenged his detention on the grounds that his representation dated 23-10-1988 was not decided by the Detaining Authority with due promptitude as envisaged in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and that the accusation against him obtaining in the order of detention Annexure P-1 was obviously without basis because, in the grounds of detention Annexure P-2, only a single transaction had been attributed to him. According to detenu-petitioner, the Detaining Authority had not applied its mind to the peculiar facts and circumstances obtaining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the petitioner; Mrs. Jaishree Anand, Advocate, for the respondents; and have carefully perused the record. 4. A reference to paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention Annexure P-2 makes it clear that there is an obvious link in the cases registered against the detenu-petitioner as also the two female accused Mehtab Begum and Shamim. The relevant words which persuaded the Court to reach this conclusion :- "You also admitted that you came across Shrimati Mehtab Begum and Shrimati Shamim at Lahore Railway Station in the waiting room and you knew both of them very well for a long time. Shrimati Mehtab Begum and Shrimati Shamim also admitted in their written statements dated 21-9-1988 that they knew you very well for a long time. You admi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Sessions Court and High Court. He had retracted from his confessional statement and also his association with the petitioner. (d) The petitioner had retracted from the statement by making an application to the Collector of Customs on 19-1-1985. (e) Shri Om Prakash had also retracted from his confessional statement by making an application on 18-1-1985. (f) to (g)............. The petitioner says that the above material being very relevant and material which would have influenced the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other has been suppressed from the detaining authority." "The declaring authority before passing the order under Section 9 also has not taken into consideration the bail applications and the orders made th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ut 25 days in disposing of the representation of the detenu and no explanation for the same has been given. These are matters which must be closely examined by the Government. For the reasons given above, we hold that the continued detention of the detenu is void. We allow the petition and direct the detenu to be released forthwith." 8. Their lordships of the Supreme Court again observed in Dulal Chandra Majumdar v. State of West Bengal, A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 2361, that the solitary ground is wholly irrelevant to the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate. In this case, the order of detention Annexure P-1 is obviously based on a single transaction of 21-9-1988 and, therefore, gets vitiated on this score as well. 9. In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
