BHUVANEESWARI Vs. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, Vinoth @ Vinothkumar @ Othakkai Vinoth, branded as a 'Goonda' in Detention Order, C. No. 19/detention/C.P.O/T.C/2014 dated 12.05.2014, by the 2nd respondent/Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, Trichy, has sought for a Writ of Habeas Corpus.

(2.) THE detenu has come to adverse notice of the police in two cases. The first case has been registered in Tiruchy City Gandhi Market Police Station Crime No. 1058/2013, under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC; second case has been registered in Tiruchy City Government Hospital Police Station Crime No. 44/2014, under Sections 323 and 365 @ 147, 148, 364, and 302 r/w. 34 IPC. The first adverse case is pending trial and the second adverse case is under investigation. Ground case has been registered in Thillai Nagar Police Station Crime No. 43/2014, under Sections 392 r/w. 397 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 4 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 Nil was received by the Government on 20.05.2014 and remarks were called for, from the Detaining Authority on 21.05.2014 and the remarks were received on 28.05.2014. Under Secretary has dealt with the file on 29.05.2014 and Deputy Secretary has dealt with the file, on 29.05.2014. Minister has dealt with the file on 03.06.2014. In between 29.05.2014 and 03.06.2014, there were 3 clear working days and 2 Government Holidays. Rejection letter was prepared on 04.06.2014 and the same was served to the detenu on 07.06.2014. Thus, there is a delay of 3 days in considering the representation, which has not been properly explained. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.