2006 (6) TMI 504

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....before the Madras High Court. The same was dismissed by the impugned judgment. 3. Mainly three grounds were urged in support of the Habeas Corpus Petition. It was submitted that there was delay in disposal of the representation. Further that the detenu had not filed any application for bail, therefore, the detaining authority had committed error in holding that there was imminent possibility of his coming out on bail. Further the detaining authority had relied upon the confessional statement of a co-accused without supplying copy thereof. That denied detenu the opportunity of making an effective representation. The High Court did not find any substance in the aforesaid submissions and dismissed the petition. 4. In support of the appeal, l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....voidable red-tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It needs no reiteration that it is the duty of the Court to see that the efficacy of the limited, yet crucial, safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the authorities entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes vulnerable. That is not the case at hand. It may be noted that the writ petition was filed on 22.12.2005, even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position as to how his....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....supply of document has to be supported by prejudice caused to him in making an effective representation. What applies to a document would equally apply to furnishing a translated copy of the document in the language known to and understood by the detenu, should the document be in a different language. 8. A bare reading of the grounds of detention in the present case shows that the detenu was not arrested on the basis of the co-accused's statement. On the contrary, it has been clearly stated in the ground of detention the detenu was arrested on suspicion. It has been stated in paragraph 3(iii) of the order of detention. The same reads as follows: On further investigation on 3.10.2005 at about 1400 hrs. near Vidayalaya bus stop, Pallad....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of the detaining authority. On the basis of materials before him, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. That is his subjective satisfaction based on materials. Normally, such satisfaction is not to be interfered with. On the facts of the case, the detaining authority has indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is likelihood of detenu being released on bail. It has been clearly stated that in similar cases orders granting bail are passed by various courts. Appellant has not disputed correctness of this statement. Strong reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the appellant on Rajesh Gulati v. Govt. of N....