ABDUL SALEEM Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present case coveting the release of the detenu after quashing the order of detention, the only ground that is being urged by Mr.B.Kumar, learned counsel for the detenu (petitioner herein) is the delay in securing the arrest of the detenu. The order of detention is dated 2.4.1990. The detenu was actually apprehended on 10.12.1990. It is true that if the long delay is left unexplained, it will vitiate the order of detention. IN Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and others, A.I.R 1990 S.C. 22 the failure to explainthe delay of three months in securing the arrest of the detenu from the date of passing of the order was taken note of as throwing considerable doubt on the genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority vitiating the validity of the order of detention. While doing so, the Supreme Court pointed out that there was no supporting affidavit from the officer entrusted with the duty of executing the order of detention. The relevant passage in the above pronouncement runs as follows:

(2.) KEEPING in mind the above principle, we are obliged to examine the facts of the present case. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the grievance over this delay has been expressed in paragraphs 6 to 8 thereof and they run as follows:

(3.) A cogent and a reasonable reading of the counter-affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents, in our view, does not bring the case on hand as one where there is no explanation at all for not securing the arrest of the detenu with expedition. It is not a case of keeping a stunned silence on this aspect. We have no doubt in our mind that all reasonable and honest endeavours were, in fact, made for securing the arrest of the detenu and only on account of the non-availability of the detenu, the order of detention could not be executed. The circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner/detenu namely, the end of the criminal prosecution, the return of the Travellers? cheque, the return of the passport and the reply to the show cause, do not by themselves prove that the detenu could be stated to be accessible for being apprehended. There is explanation convincing to us for the authorities not being able to apprehend the detenu. We do not think that we should insist for minute by minute explanation for not apprehending the detenu. A person is capable of making himself scarce inspite of all the proceedings and successfully preventing his apprehension. This being our conclusion on assessment of the facts of the case, as exposed before us, we are not persuaded to accept the only ground of attack put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner-detenu, coveting the release of the detenu. No other point was urged. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.