PARTHIBAN Vs. SECRETARY GOVERNMENT; COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in Memo No.995/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention.

(2.) The detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_303_LAWS(MAD)4_2014_1.html</FRM>

(3.) Besides several grounds raised to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner is mainly concerned with two grounds, first of which is to the similar case relied on by the detaining authority and secondly, the translation of the remand order. As regards the first ground, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the similar cases relied on by the detaining authority pertaining to Crime No.1960/2012 and Crime No.1062/2011, material part of investigation was completed and conditional bail was granted to the accused therein, whereas, in the case of detenu herein, the adverse case and ground case are under investigation. On the second ground of defective translation, learned counsel would submit that the line "Right to consult an advocate also explained'' of the English version of the remand order dated 09.09.2013 in page 124 of the booklet, is not properly translated in the Tamil version.