1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14.03.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 Rani ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirapalli City, Trichirapalli. 2.The State rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 3.The Inspector of Police, Cantonment (L & O) Police Station, Trichirapalli. ... Respondents PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, directing the respondents to produce the detenu Pandi @ Sundarapandi son of Vijayakumar aged 27 years, who has been termed as Goonda who is now confined in Central Prison, Trichy and call for records in C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.71/2010 dated 17.11.2010 passed by the 1st respondent herein and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who was termed as Goonda and detained by the detention order dated 17.11.2010 and confined in Central Prison, Trichy. 2.Challenging the detention order, the petitioner has raised the following grounds: (i)that there was a delay in considering the representation of the detenu dated 01.12.2010, (ii)that when the bail application is pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Trichy, the Detaining Authority has drawn an https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 inference that the detenu is likely to be released on bail and (iii)that the bail applications were not furnished to the detenu. 3.Mr.T.Senthil Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the representation was given on 01.12.2010 and the remarks were received on 15.12.2010 and the rejection letter was prepared only on 28.12.2010, therefore, there is a delay of 12 days. The learned counsel also submitted that bail was granted in the first adverse case to the petitioner on 27.09.2010 and thereafter, the second adverse case was registered on 08.11.2010 and the ground case was registered on 09.11.2010 for which, the detenu had filed bail application. But, the said bail application, though considered by the detaining authority, was not furnished to the detenu. 4.The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind and there was no cogent material available to the satisfaction of the Detaining Authority and when bail application is pending, he has come to a conclusion that there is a likelihood of the petitioner coming out of bail. 5.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there was a representation dated 22.11.2010, which has been considered and on which remarks were called for on 29.11.2010 and the same reached the Collectorate on 01.12.2010. But, the same was kept pending with the Collectorate till 06.12.2010. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that if at all there is a delay at the Collectorate by forwarding the remarks as there was no intervening holidays. 6.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 7.According to the proforma submitted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor that there were 3 representations. Out of which, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on a representation dated 01.12.2010. However, there was an earlier representation made by the detenu dated 22.11.2010, which was considered by the Government. As stated earlier, there was a delay of 6 days from 01.12.2010 to 08.12.2010. Out of 8 days there were two intervening holidays. Therefore, there is a clear delay of 6 days for which there is no explanation from the Detaining Authority. A counter affidavit has also been filed by the 1st respondent wherein the delay of 6 days has not been explained adequately. 8.When there is an unexplained delay, we are of the considered view that the detention order is vitiated and we are not persuaded with the other grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is allowed and the order of detention dated 17.11.2010 passed by the 1st respondent in Detention Order https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.71/2010 is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. SD/- Assistant Registrar (Crl.side) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, TRICHIRAPPALLI CITY, TRICHIRAPPALLI. 2. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT,. SECRETARIAT, CHENNAI-9. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CANTONMENT ( L & O ) POLICE STATION, TRICHIRAPPALLI. 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 5. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI 6. THE JOINT SECERTARY TO GOVERNMENT PUBLIC (LAW AND ORDER) FORT ST.GEORGE, CHENNAI 9 7. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI 8. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (LAW AND ORDER) CHENNAI 4 +1 CC TO MR. T.A. Om PRAKASH, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 6353 H.C.P.(MD)No.1 of 2011 14.03.2011 nbj PAM 24.05.2011/10C/3P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/