AMUTHAVALLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu/E. Senthilkumar alias Karthik, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order No. 4/BDFGISSV/2014, dated 05.03.2014, by the 1st respondent/Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, has sought for the present Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in eight cases. The first case has been registered in Tirunelveli District Thalayuthu Police Station Crime No. 211/2011, under Section 394 IPC; second case has been registered in Palayamkottai Crime Police Station Crime No. 708/2011, under Section 392 IPC; third case has been registered in Palayamkottai Crime Police Station Crime No. 709/2011, under Section 379 IPC; fourth case has been registered in Thoothukudi District Sathankulam Police Station Crime No. 224/2012, under Section 392 IPC r/w 1409 IPC; fifth case has been registered in Tirunelveli District Tisayanvilai Police Station Crime No. 13/2013, under Section 392 IPC; sixth case has been registered in Tirunelveli District Tisayanvilai Police Station Crime No. 16/2013, under Section 392 IPC; seventh case has been registered in Tirunelveli District Tisayanvilai Police Station Crime No. 17/2013, under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC and eighth case has been registered in Palayamkottai Police Station Crime No. 84/2014, under Sections 153(A), and 506(ii) IPC. Adverse cases 1 to 3, 5 and 6 are pending trial and in the adverse cases 4 and 7, charge sheet has been filed and the eighth adverse case is under investigation. Ground case has been registered on the file of Palayamkottai Police Station Crime No. 85/2014, under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) IPC, in which, the detenu has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is indulging in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, the Detaining Authority, has clamped the Detention Order, on the Detenu. At paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows: -

(3.) ON a perusal of the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the representation dated 03.06.2014 was received by the Government on 05.06.2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 06.06.2014 and the remarks were received on 17.06.2014. In between 06.06.2014 and 17.06.2014, there were six clear working days and four Government Holidays. Under Secretary has dealt with the file on 18.06.2014 and the Deputy Secretary has dealt with the file on the same day. Minister has dealt with the file on 19.06.2014. Rejection letter was prepared on 20.06.2014 and the same was served to the detenu on 25.06.2014. Thus, there is a delay of six days, in receiving the remarks, which has not been properly explained. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.