LILLY Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Leo alias Roanald Rose Leo, S/o. James (Male aged 33 years), branded as 'Goonda' in detention order in C. No. 18/Detention/CPO/TC/2014, dated 23.04.2014 by the Commissioner of Police, Tiruchirappalli City, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in four cases, were registered against him in Crime Nos. 59, 37, 124 and 136/2014 under Sections, 392 R/w. 397 IPC; 379 IPC; 379 altered into 392 IPC; and 392 IPC respectively, on the file of Tiruchy City, K.K. Nagar Police Station. The first and second adverse case are under investigation and the third and fourth are yet to be taken on file by the Trial Court, when the order of detention was passed. The order of detention was passed on the basis of the ground case alleged to have registered on 15.03.2014 on the file of K.K. Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 143 of 2014 under Sections 392 R/w. 397 IPC in which he has been remanded. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Order, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 5, 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 28.04.2014 was received by the Government on 30.04.2014. The remarks were called for, by the Detaining Authority, on 02.05.2014 and the remarks were received by the Government on 06.05.2014. The file has been submitted to the Under Secretary on 07.05.2014. But, the Ministry for Electricity, Prohibition and Excise, dealt with the same only on 17.05.2014 In between 07.04.2014 and 17.05.2014, there were 7 clear working days and 3 holidays. There is 7 days delay 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.