2009 (6) TMI 1023 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues involved: Challenge to detention order u/s T.N. Act 14/82 branding detenu as "Goonda" u/s 2(f) of the Act. Main contentions raised: (i) Unexplained delay in passing detention order, (ii) Ground of detention referring to only one incident u/s 397 IPC.

Unexplained Delay in Passing Detention Order:
The detenu was involved in a criminal incident on 01.06.2007 but the detention order was passed on 19.08.2008, after a significant delay. The detaining authority justified the delay by stating that the detenu was habitually committing crimes prejudicial to public order. However, the court emphasized that a long and unexplained delay between the criminal act and the detention order can break the chain of reasoning for detention. The court referred to a Supreme Court case where it was held that the time lapse should be sufficiently explained to maintain the nexus between the incident and the detention order. In this case, the court found no valid explanation for the delay, leading to the quashing of the detention order.

Nexus Between Prejudicial Activity and Detention Order:
The court highlighted that the live link between the alleged prejudicial activity and the apprehension for future actions is crucial for a detention order to be valid. In this case, the detaining authority failed to establish a clear connection between the incident on 01.06.2007 and the necessity for the detention order passed on 19.08.2008. The court noted the absence of any material showing the detenu's continued prejudicial activities during the period of delay. This lack of evidence, coupled with the unexplained delay, rendered the detention order invalid.

Conclusion:
The High Court allowed the habeas corpus petition, quashing the detention order dated 19.08.2008. The detenu, Kumar @ Minnal Kumar, was directed to be released unless required in connection with any other case. The court's decision was based on the absence of a valid explanation for the delay in passing the detention order and the failure to establish a clear nexus between the alleged prejudicial activity and the need for detention.