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 · 223 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Petitioner is the father of the detenu. This is the second detention order against the detenu. On expiry of the first detention order on 19.04.2023, the detenu is involved in another crime registered on 31.07.2023. In that case he is arrayed as the 7th accused. However, it is to be noted that no specific overt act has been attributed against him. No doubt the authorities are competent to pass detention order on registration of crime. However, nature of offence committed by the person is ordered to be detained. Solitary case registered after the earlier detention order itself cannot result in passing a detention order unless his involvement in the said crime was lead to threat to the society at large.
Taking into account the nature of offence and the alleged involvement in the case, we are of the view that the authority had not applied its mind while passing the detention order against him. That apart, there is no allegation of overt act attributable to the detenue.
In such circumstances, we are of the view that impugned order has to be set aside. Accordingly, the same is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be released forthwith, provided, if he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.