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 · 215 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
This writ petition for habeas corpus has been filed by the mother of the detenu.
The last prejudicial activity was on 11.10.2021. The detention order was passed on 20.07.2023. There is a delay of one year and nine months. It is to be noted that in the last prejudicial activity, the petitioner was tried and found not guilty. The previous crime was in the year, 2020.
The purpose of the detention order is to prevent repetition of commission of offence. In a case like this, when there is a considerable delay, the court will have to note whether any live link subsists between the date of last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order. Particularly, in this case, noting that the detenu has been acquitted in the last prejudicial activity and there is a long delay of more than one and half years resulting in snapping of live link between the date of last prejudicial activity and the date of passing the detention order, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned detention order.
Accordingly, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, if his further detention is not otherwise required under law.