SUDHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Senthilmurugan @ Murugan, aged 33, branded as 'Goonda' in detention order in C.M.P.No.12/2014, dated 20.03.2014 by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai, has sought for a writ of Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) THE Detenu has come to the adverse notice of the police in one case, registered in Cr.No.496/2013 under Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 302 r/w 149 and 212 IPC on the file of Theppakulam Police Station, Madurai City. The adverse case is pending trial, 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 04.01.2014 on the file of Karuppayurani P.S. in Cr.No.05/2014 under Sections 147, 148, 326, 307 and 302 IPC and 4(a)(b) of the Explosives Substances Act, 1908. On being satisfied that the Detenu is habitually indulging in activities, affecting the public Order and public peace, the Detaining Authority has clamped the Detention Order on the Detenu. At paragraph 5, the Detaining Authority has concluded as follows:      ''5. I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the Court, since bails are granted in similar cases by the concerned Court or Higher Courts after lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace and further the recourse of the normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public peace. Therefore, there is compelling necessity to pass this order of detention. ''

(3.) ON a perusal of the Proforma produced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, we find that the representation dated 01.04.2014 was received by the Government on 04.04.2014. The remarks were called for, by the Detaining Authority, on 07.04.2014 and the remarks were received by the Government on 15.04.2014. In between 07.04.2014 and 15.04.2014, there were clear working days and 3 holidays. There is delay in considering therepresentation, during the relevant period, at one stage, which has not been properly explained. At this juncture, this Court deems it fit to consider few decisions on the aspect of delay.