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 · 258 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu is involved in eight crimes. The last prejudicial activity was on 17.06.2023. The detenu was arrested on 21.06.2023. Since then, he has been in judicial custody as on today.
The sponsoring authority submitted its report on 25.08.2023 and the detention order was passed on 29.11.2023. It is to be noted that the delay was not properly explained in this matter. The detention order was passed after the lapse of five months and 12 days. The purpose of the detention order is to prevent the recurrence of the commission of such offence. Prompt action is necessary immediately after the commission of the offence. If such a huge delay is not explained, it would result in setting aside the detention order. It is also noted that as on today, the detenu is in judicial custody for more than eight months. This aspect will have to be considered while this Court considers the detention order at this distance of time. Taking note of the fact that the purpose of detention is to prevent a person from repeating the offence for a period of six months, it can be said that this purpose is achieved as he remained in judicial custody for more than six months.
Taking note of the overall facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and order release of the detenu forthwith, if he is not required under law for any other purposes.
The writ petition(criminal) is disposed of as above.