TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1700X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 15.01.2010. However, the detention order was served on the detenue only on 25.11.2010, after a delay of 10 months and 10 days. He, however, submitted that the detenue was arrested on 05.02.2010 in relation to FIR 68/2010 and has been in jail since then. He referred to Annexure R-3 to the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents to indicate that the arrest of the detenue was in the knowledge of the respondents and the detaining authority on 05.02.2010 itself. He submitted that despite the detenue being in police custody, the detention order was not served on the detenue till WP (Crl) 1741/2010 was filed in this Court on 23.11.2010, which came up for hearing on 24.11.2010. The hearing of that writ petition was adjourned to 26.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on Period of delay 1. A. Mohammed Farook 2000 SCC (Crl) 411 40 days 2. S. M. F. Sultan Abdul Kadar (1998) 8 SCC 343 Less than 5 months 3. T. A. Abdul Rehman AIR 1990 SC 225 3 months 4. K. P. M. Bashir 1992 Crl. L. J 1927 (3 Judges) 5 months 11 days 5. Sk. Nizamuddin AIR 1974 SC 2353 2-1/2 months ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would be taking the plea that the additional affidavit cannot be filed and cannot be taken into consideration inasmuch as the respondents cannot improve their case now. In the meanwhile, as a provisional measure, the detenue is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 5 lacs with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jaipur, Rajasthan. This order has been passed in this case and the detenue will be released only if he is not required in any other case. Renotify on 13.01.2011. Dasti to both the parties. 2. The matter was again listed on 13.01.2011 on which date, the respondents took a final ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nst the detenue, by a letter dated 05.02.2010. A copy of the said letter has been enclosed as Annexure R-4 to the counter affidavit. It is further noted in the said counter affidavit that the Directorate of Enforcement, Mumbai also approached the Commissioner of Police, Mumbai for execution of the detention order vide letters dated 05.02.2010 and 22.02.2010. 5. It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Preventive), Crime Branch, CID, Mumbai vide letter dated 22.02.2010 reported that the detenue was arrested by the Police Officers of the EOW, Unit No.V, Mumbai in their C.R. No. 74/2007 on 04.02.2010 and was under investigation in police custody. It is also indicated in the counter affidavit that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing agency, i.e. the Preventive Crime Branch, (PCB), CID, Mumbai has however, been directed to take necessary action without any delay, subject to the legal proceedings initiated before various Courts, as mentioned above. 8. Even this letter was written on 09.06.2010 and the detenue was not served with the detention order till as late as 25.11.2010. We may point out that one of the purported reasons given for delay in the execution of the detention order was that the detenue was in police/judicial custody. But we find this explanation to be unacceptable inasmuch as the detenue was ultimately served on 25.11.2010 when he was lodged in jail at Jaipur. 9. In view of the foregoing facts, we find that there is no explanation for the dela ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
