High Court quashes detention orders in Habeas Corpus Petitions for predetermination, delays, and improper reliance.

The High Court quashed the detention orders in various Habeas Corpus Petitions due to predetermination by the Detaining Authority, unexplained delays in considering representations, non-application of mind, use of irrelevant materials, confusion between adverse and ground cases, and improper reliance on bail granted in unrelated cases. The detenus were ordered to be released immediately, unless needed for detention in other cases.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Predetermination by the Detaining Authority.
2. Delay in considering representations.
3. Non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.
4. Use of irrelevant materials for detention.
5. Confusion between adverse case and ground case.
6. Bail granted to the accused in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

Predetermination by the Detaining Authority:
The affidavits requesting the detention of the detenus were prepared and attested by the Commissioner of Police, who later passed the detention orders. This conduct indicates predetermination and bias, as the Commissioner acted both as the sponsoring authority and the Detaining Authority. The affidavits were attested in the immediate presence of the Commissioner, suggesting a lack of independent consideration.

Delay in Considering Representations:
There were significant delays in considering the representations made by the detenus, which were not adequately explained. For instance, in H.C.P.(MD)No.556 of 2016, there was a delay of 6 days and another 17 days in considering representations. Similar unexplained delays were noted in other petitions. The Supreme Court has held that any inordinate and unexplained delay in considering representations renders the detention illegal.

Non-application of Mind by the Detaining Authority:
The Detaining Authority failed to consider contradictions in the documents, such as the production of accused on PT warrant versus their voluntary appearance as stated in confession statements. There was a clear non-application of mind, as the Detaining Authority did not scrutinize the materials independently.

Use of Irrelevant Materials for Detention:
The Detaining Authority used bail granted to an accused in an unrelated case (Crime No.1273 of 2013) to justify the likelihood of the detenus being released on bail. The Supreme Court has clarified that similar cases must involve co-accused in the same offence to be relevant. The use of irrelevant cases indicates a flawed basis for detention.

Confusion between Adverse Case and Ground Case:
There was a mix-up in identifying the adverse case and ground case. The adverse case was incorrectly mentioned as the incident on 10 January 2016, while the ground case was the incident on 09 January 2016. This confusion was not addressed by the Detaining Authority, further demonstrating non-application of mind.

Bail Granted to the Accused in Similar Cases:
The Detaining Authority's reliance on bail granted in unrelated cases to predict the release of the detenus was deemed inappropriate. The Supreme Court has ruled that the possibility of bail alone is insufficient for detention unless there are credible reasons and supporting materials.

Conclusion:
The High Court quashed the detention orders in all the Habeas Corpus Petitions due to predetermination by the Detaining Authority, unexplained delays in considering representations, non-application of mind, use of irrelevant materials, confusion between adverse and ground cases, and improper reliance on bail granted in unrelated cases. The detenus were ordered to be released forthwith, provided they were not required for detention in any other case.

---