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
57 paragraphs · 442 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ of habeas was filed by the wife of the detenu. The detenu was involved in five crimes registered under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act. The details of the crime registered and relied on for detention order are as follows:
Sl.
No.
Crime No.
Police Station
Offences involved under section
Date of occurrence
Report u/s 173(2) Cr.P.C.
Present status of the case
1
005/17
Kottarakkara Excise
20(b) (ii) B of NDPS
Act.
28-07-17
Charge sheeted
Convicted on 30.07.2019.
2
507/2016
Kottarakkara
20(b)(ii)B of NDPS Act
27-02-16
Charge sheeted
Convicted on 16.02.2021 for
5 years
rigorous imprisonment and fined Rs.25,000/-.
He submitted appeal petition.
3
388/2020
Chadayamangalam
20(b) (ii) B of NDPS
Act
01-03-20
Charge sheeted
Under Trial
stage at
Addl.Sessions Court, Kollam as SC 961/2022
4
2256/202
2
Kottarakkara
220(b)(ii) B of NDPS
Act
06-10-22
Charge sheeted
Under trial
5
741/2023
Kottarakkara
20(b)
(ii) B of NDPS Act
21-03-23
Nil
Under Investigation
It is to be noted that in respect of crime No.2, he has been already convicted for rigorous imprisonment and his sentence has been suspended by the appellate court. The last crime was committed on 21.3.2023. However, the detention order was passed only on 05.08.2023, more than five months delay was occasioned. However, based on the previous crimes, the sponsoring authority submitted its report on 31.10.2022. After submitting the initial report, the detenu committed the last crime. The detention order was passed based on the report submitted on considering the previous crimes. If that be the case, there is a delay of more than ten months after the fourth offence till the passing of the detention order. The very objective of the detention order is to prevent the commission of the offence. If more than ten months lapsed, the very purpose of such a detention order will be frustrated. Absolutely, there is no explanation for the considerable delay in passing the detention order taking note of all the previous crimes. We also note that he has been convicted for five years with rigorous imprisonment and the sentence has been stayed. Nothing prevents the sponsoring authority from reporting before the court which granted the stay on sentence that he has committted the offence after the stay was granted pending the appeal. Anyway, taking note of the overall circumstances, we are of the view that the the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order is snapped. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. The detenu is set at liberty, provided, if he is not required under law for any other case.
The writ petition (criminal) is disposed of as above.