AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
5 paragraphs · 241 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque (J)
This writ of habeas was filed by the brother of the detenue. The detenue has involved in five crimes. The last crime was registered against him on 22.04.2023 and was arrested on the same day. He was released on bail on 31.05.2023.
The sponsoring authority submitted report on 31.05.2023 and additional report was submitted on 26.07.2023. Thereafter, the detention order was passed on 21.08.2023.
We perused the detention order. Absolutely, no reasons have been stated by the respondent for the considerable delay from the last prejudicial activity and passing the detention order. Being the last prejudicial activity was on 22.04.2023 and the report was submitted by the sponsorship authority on 31.05.2023, the detention order ought to have been followed immediately thereafter. But strangely, the additional report was obtained on 26.07.2023, that itself cannot justify the delay involved in this matter, especially when there is no explanation in the detention order. The very purpose in the object of detention order is to ensure public order. If the delay is in such a nature, it will not sub-serve the purpose. There is no point in passing such detention order.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, if there is no explanation for the delay we find that the livelink between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the Writ Petition Criminal is disposed of.