K MEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ramu. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.34/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 11.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.

(2.) THE Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. THE Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention.

(3.) ADDED further the learned Counsel that in paragraph 2 of the order, while the authority has stated that he was aware of the fact that the detenu was in remand in Crime No.66/2010, he has not even whispered that in respect of the other cases in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65/2010, he was under remand or not so that under the circumstances, all would clearly indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the authority that apart from that, the authority could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction as one required in law, on the basis of the materials placed before him, and hence it has got to be set aside.