Abdul Kalam v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.08.2024 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1573 of 2024 Abdul Kalam ... Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State Represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.
The Inspector of Police, Salem City PEW Police Station, Salem.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in C.M.P.No.40/Drug
Offender/Salem City/2024 dated 06.05.2024 on the file of the Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem, the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce the detenue Thiru. Abdul Kareem, s/o. Kadhar Basha, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Ms.S.Sengkodi For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) Solitary criminal case registered against the detenue is the basis for the issuance of the detention order.
The detenue was an intermediary and admittely he was arrested on 14.03.2024. However, the order of detention was passed on 06.05.2024, after a lapse of about one and a half months. Thus, there is a probability of drawing a facutal inference that the competent Authority has not applied their mind with reference to the criminal case registered. Mere registration of the criminal case would be insufficient to detain a person under
prevention laws. It must be beyond the criminal case registered and but to the subjective satisfaction of the Authority that there is a likelihood of causing breach of public order.
That being so, the subjective satisfaction, which is to be ascertained, mere registration of one case would be insufficient to invoke the detention laws. In the present case, the delay in passing the impugned order of detention is also vital. The Authority has not exercised their powers with proper assessment of the situation and the element of likelihood of causing breach of public order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention in proceedings No.C.M.P.No.40/Drug Offender/Salem City/2024 dated 06.05.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent is quashed and the Hebeas Corpus Petition stands allowed.
[S.M.S., J.] [V.S.G., J.] 06.08.2024 Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No veda
To 1.
The State Represented by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
The Commissioner of Police, Salem City, Salem.
The Superintendent of Police, Central Prison, Salem.
The Inspector of Police, Salem City PEW Police Station, Salem.
5.
The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND V.SIVAGNANAM, J.
veda H.C.P.No.1573 of 2024 06.08.2024