Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 396 (PAT)

Uma Shankar Singh, Uma Singh v. State Of Bihar

2007-02-21

JAYANANDAN SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment NARAYAN ROY and JAYANANDAN SINGH JJ. 1. Heard Mr. Rana Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rakesh Kumar, learned Government Advocate No. IX for the respondents and considered the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. 2. The order of detention passed by the District Magistrate, Gaya in exercise of its power under Sec. 12(2) of the Control of Crimes Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is under challenge. 3. Mr. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner mainly assails the order of detention on the grounds that despite asking for the relevant documents pertaining to the detention of the petitioner, the same was not supplied to him and therefore he could not file effective representation as required to be filed under the provisions of the Act, and secondly there appears to be unexplained delay of about fifteen days in disposal of the representation. 4. To elaborate his submission, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner after his detention asked for the relevant documents pertaining to the cases which were shown as grounds, through his representation dated 6.3.2006. Sufficient documents as required, however, were not supplied to him. He again filed his representation through jail authorities which was received in the Department on 3.4.2006 but the same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner by letter dated 20th April, 2006. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that firstly the petitioner was denied opportunity to file effective representation as all the documents asked for were never furnished and secondly his representation was disposed of almost after more than fifteen days from the date it was received in the department and on these grounds alone the order of detention vitiates. In support of his contention, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 6 S.C.C. 593 and in the case of Rajammal Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, AIR 1999 S.C. 684 . 5. In the case of Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham (supra) the Supreme Court observed that an effective representation can be made against the order of detention only when copies of the material documents which were considered and relied upon by the detaining authority in forming his opinion that the detention of the detenu was necessary were supplied to him. 5. In the case of Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham (supra) the Supreme Court observed that an effective representation can be made against the order of detention only when copies of the material documents which were considered and relied upon by the detaining authority in forming his opinion that the detention of the detenu was necessary were supplied to him. In the case at hand, it appears that the entire material documents which were the basis for passing of the order of detention was not supplied to him though some of the material documents were supplied and therefore, the petitioner was denied opportunity of filing effective representation as required under the provisions of the Act. 6. In the case of Rajammal (Supra) the Apex Court held that unexplained delay in the disposal of the representation vitiates detention. This Court also in the case of Umesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2002 (1) PLJR 419 reiterated the same view. In the case of Rajammal (supra) unexplained delay was only of five days whereas in the case at hand unexplained delay is of more than fifteen days in the disposal of the representation as would be evident from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Home (Police). The ratio laid down by the Apex Court and this Court, in these view of the matter, aptly applies in the facts and circumstances of the case and the order of detention, therefore, is not sustainable. 7. In the result, this application is allowed. The order impugned detaining the petitioner is set aside. He is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.