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 · 313 wordsA.Muhamed Mustaque, J.
Petitioner is the wife of the detenu. Detenu already suffered a detention order. After earlier detention order, he is alleged to have involved in a crime. The incident in the crime occurred on 02.11.2023 in a Bar. However, the case was registered only on 09.12.2023 and he was arrested on the same day. Thereafter he was released on bail. The detention order was passed on 31.01.2024.
Taking note of the incident referred in the crime, we are of the view that if such a crime is reported very belatedly, no proceedings should be initiated based on such a crime. The belated registration of crime itself would show rooms for suspicion as to the nature of involvement of a person, who is ordered to be detained. It is not a matter where there was delay in apprehending a person, who alleged to have committed crime. It is a matter where the comission of offence itself reported belatedly. While passing detention order, there should be an application of mind as to the involvement of the person ordered to be detained in a crime, and on being satisfied that he has actively involved and he would be a threat to the society, the order of detention can be passed.
In a matter like this, when there is a room for doubt as crime itself was reported belatedly, benefit should be given to the person against whom proceedings are recommended for detention.
We are of the view that based on the solitary incident as above, there could not have been any proceedings under the preventive detention law. These aspects have not been considered by the detention authority. Therefore, we set aside the detention order and order to release the detenu forthwith, provided, he is not otherwise required in any other case under law.
This W.P.(Crl.) is disposed of as above.