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
6 paragraphs · 259 wordsA. Muhamed Mustaque, J
The petitioner, the mother of the detenu, has approached this Court challenging the detention order at the fag end of the detention period.
The detention period will expire on 24.01.2024. The last prejudicial activity in this matter occurred on 17.04.2023 and he was in judicial custody from 26.05.2023. Bail was granted on 26.07.2023. The sponsoring authority submitted a report initially on 18.03.2023. Thereafter, he committed the last prejudicial offence. The delay was explained in the detention order stating that an additional report was sought in view of the last prejudicial activity and the said additional report was submitted on 05.07.2023. Immediately, on 22.07.2023, the impugned detention order was passed.
It is to be noted that the last prejudicial activity was on 17.04.2023 and the additional report was submitted only on 05.07.2023. We note that there is considerable delay involved between the last prejudicial activity and submission of report by the sponsoring authority for passing the detention order. We also note that the detenu was in judicial custody for more than two months.
Taking note of the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the live link between the last prejudicial activity and the detention order has been snapped as there was considerable delay on the part of the sponsoring authority in submitting report.
In that view of the matter, the WP(Crl) is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside and the concerned prison authorities are directed to release the detenu forthwith, if his detention is not otherwise required.