TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Detention order overturned due to stale grounds and lack of reasonable prognosis.</h1> The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the detention order dated 23.11.2016 and the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High ... Grant of Bail - Validity of Detention order - four offences of criminal conspiracy, cheating, kidnapping and extortion - case of Appellant is that the grounds of detention are stale, they are based on the incidents which are said to have occurred between the period from 2002 to 2007 and are relied on by the detaining authority while forming its opinion and recording its satisfaction that the detenu needs to be detained on 23.11.2016 - HELD THAT:- The detention order in this case is vitiated by taking into account incidents so far back in the past as would have no bearing on the immediate need to detain him without a trial. The satisfaction of the authority is not in respect of the thing in regard to which it is required to be satisfied. Incidents which are stale, cease to have relevance to the subject matter of the enquiry and must be treated as extraneous to the scope and purpose of the statute - In this case, the authority has come to a conclusion so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever reach. A detaining authority must be taken to know both, the purpose and the procedure of law. It is no answer to say that the authority was satisfied. The influence of the stale incidents in the detention order is too pernicious to be ignored, and the order must therefore go; both on account of being vitiated due to malice in law and for taking into account matters which ought not to have been taken into account - There is another reason why the detention order is unjustified. It was passed when the Accused was in jail in Crime No. 221 of 2016. His custody in jail for the said offence was converted into custody under the impugned detention order. The incident involved in this offence is sometime in the year 2002-2003. The detenu could not have been detained preventively by taking this stale incident into account, more so when he was in jail. Appeal allowed. Issues Involved:1. Validity of the detention order based on stale grounds.2. Relevance of past incidents to justify preventive detention.3. Judicial review of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction.4. Legality of detention when the detenu is already in judicial custody.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the detention order based on stale grounds:The primary issue raised by the appellant was that the grounds of detention were stale, as they were based on incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2007. The detaining authority relied on four cases from this period to justify the detention order dated 23.11.2016. The Court noted that these incidents were 9 to 14 years old, and their relevance to a grossly belated order of detention was questionable. The Court held that the exercise of the power of detention based on such stale grounds appeared mala fide in law.2. Relevance of past incidents to justify preventive detention:The Court examined whether the past conduct of the detenu could justify a preventive detention order in 2016. It was emphasized that only activities so far back in the past which lead to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to engage in or prepare to engage in such activities in the immediate future can be taken into account. The Court cited Golam Hussain alias Gama v. Commissioner of Police, Calcutta and Ors., stating that incidents from nine to fourteen years earlier could not form the basis for a present-day preventive detention order. The Court concluded that the detention order was based on grounds that were too old to be relevant for such an order.3. Judicial review of the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction:The Court reiterated that while reviewing a detention order, it does not substitute its judgment for the decision of the executive. However, it has a duty to ensure that the decision is made based on relevant matters as laid down by the statute. The Court referred to Khudiram Das v. The State of West Bengal and Ors., emphasizing that the grounds for the detaining authority's satisfaction must be relevant and rationally probative. The Court found that the detaining authority's satisfaction was not genuine, as it was based on stale incidents, and thus the detention order was vitiated.4. Legality of detention when the detenu is already in judicial custody:The Court highlighted that the detenu was already in jail for Crime No. 221 of 2016, and his custody was converted into preventive detention based on an incident from 2002-2003. The Court cited Ramesh Yadav v. District Magistrate, Etah and Ors., stating that merely on the ground that an accused in detention as an under-trial prisoner was likely to get bail, an order of detention should not ordinarily be passed. The Court found that the detention order was unjustified as it was based on stale incidents and was passed while the detenu was already in custody.Conclusion:The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the detention order dated 23.11.2016 and the impugned judgment and order dated 22.03.2017 passed by the High Court of Hyderabad. The Court held that the detention order was based on stale grounds, lacked a reasonable prognosis of future behavior, and was unjustified while the detenu was already in judicial custody.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
