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 · 211 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J.
The petitioner is the mother of the detenu namely, Ashif. The detenu suffered an externment order. Thereafter, he was involved in a criminal case and that was registered on 18.01.2024. The detention order was passed on 15.05.2024. In the last crime, no overt act is attributed against the detenu. That means, absolutely there was no application of mind while passing the detention order. Merely for the reason that a person is involved in a crime, there is no necessity of invoking the detention proceedings against him, unless his activities are so manifest to arrive at a conclusion that he would be a threat to the society.
Secondly, we also note the delay about four months. All records are available with the sponsoring authority. This is a matter in which an externment order has already been passed. In such situation, the delay cannot be said to be reasonable and we hold that the live-link between the last prejudicial activity and the date of detention order is snapped.
In the light of above, we set aside the impugned order and order release of the detenu forthwith, if his custody is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.Crl. is disposed of as above.