Sushanta Kumar Banik Versus State of Tripura & Ors

Sushanta Kumar Banik Versus State of Tripura & Ors

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1708 OF 2022
(Arising out of S.L.P. (Criminal) No. 6683 of 2022)
Sushanta Kumar Banik …Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Tripura & Ors. …Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
J.B. PARDIWALA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is at the instance of a detenu detained under
Section 3(1) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (for short, ‘PIT NDPS Act’) and
is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High
Court of Tripura at Agartala dated 01.06.2022 in Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 6 of 2021 by which the High Court rejected the writ
application filed by the appellant herein questioning the legality
and validity of the detention order passed by the Government of
2
Tripura dated 12.11.2021 and thereby affirming the order of
detention.
3. It all started with a proposal dated 28th of June, 2021
submitted by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura District,
Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Amtali, West Tripura to the
Superintendent of Police (C/S), West Tripura, Agartala with a
request to move the appropriate authority for passing an
appropriate order of detention under the provisions of the
PIT NDPS Act.
4. The proposal reads thus:-
“GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
OFFICE OF THE SUB DIVISIONAL POLICE OFFICER
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA
No. 1445/SDPO(AMT)/21
To Dated, 28th June, 2021
The Superintendent of Police (C/S),
West Tripura, Agartala.
Subject: Proposal for Preventive Detention order of
accused Susanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch.
Banik of Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha,
near Railway Station, PS Amtali, West Tripura U/-3 of
PIT NDPS Act, 1988.
Sir,
With reference to the subject cited above, it is
to inform that I am submitting a proposal for issuance
of preventive detention order against the accused
Susanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik of
Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near
Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura U/-3 of PIT
NDPS Act, 1988.
3
Ongoing through the proposal and the relevant
records collected from various sources, the following
grounds have been found for detention of Susanta
Kumar Banik, S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik of
Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near
Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura U/-3 of PIT
NDPS Act, 1988.
1. Sri Susanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik
of Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near
Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura was charge
sheeted in Amtali PS Case No. 2019/AMT/208 dated
05/11/2019 U/S 22(b)/22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985
which was registered following seizure of 92 gm brown
sugar (Heroin) & 7600 nos yaba tablets. Investigation of
the case has revealed that he is involved in running of
illegal business of narcotic drugs throughout the State
and outside the State. The subject was arrested on
05/11/2019 and forwarded to the Ld. Court. He has
already been charge sheeted in this case vide Amtali PS
C/S No. 11/20 dated 09/02/2020 (Copy of FIR, seizure
list, inventory, arrest memo, SFSL report, statement of
witnesses are enclosed).
2. Sri Susanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik
of Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near
Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura again got
involved in East Agartala PS Case No. 2021 EAG 052
dated 25/04/2021 U/S-21(B)/29 of NDPS Act wherein
on 25/04/2021 the said Susanta Kumar Banik S/o Lt.
Santi Ch. Banik was again caught red handed while
dealing with NDPS substance near Badharghat Railway
Station. One pouch filled with suspected heroin was
recovered from his possession along with cash
Rs.20,400/- & a android mobile. It has made very much
clear that the said Sushanta Kumar Banik is a habitual
drug dealer and sells drug to youths hence running the
lives of young fellows as well as the entire society as a
whole. The investigation of the above referred case is
under progress and the said Susanta Kumar Banik is
learned to be in Judicial Custody.
In view of the above it can be stated that Sri
Susanta Kumar Banik is a kingpin in illegal trafficking
of narcotic drugs inside the state as well as outside the
4
state. He did not stop his illegal activities of narcotics
drugs and psychotropic substances even after his arrest
in previous case vide Amtali PS Case No. 208/19 and
East Agartala PS Case No. 52/2021. It shows his
determination is to continue his illegal NDPS business.
It is further mentioned that illicit trafficking in narcotic
drugs and psychotropic substances caused a serious
threat to the health and welfare of the people and to
protect the society from this menace it is required to take
stern action against the subject.
The appropriate authority may please be moved to
issue detention order against Susanta Kumar Banik,
S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik of Siddhiashram, Badharghat,
Kalimata Sangha, near Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West
Tripura U/s-3 of PIT NDPS Act, 1988 to prevent him
from engaging in illicit trafficking of narcotic drugs and
psychotropic substances further.
Yours sincerely,
Enclo: List of relied documents. Sd/- 28/6/21
(Anirban Das)
 Superintendent of Police,
 West Tripura District,
 Sub-Divisional Police Officer
 Amtali, West Tripura.”
5. The Secretary (Home Department), Government of Tripura
acting on the proposal dated 14.07.2021 forwarded by the Director
General of Police proceeded to pass the detention order dated
12.11.2021 which reads thus:
“No. F. 15(9)- PD/2021(III)
GOVERNMENT OF TRIPURA
HOME DEPARTMENT
12th November, 2021
O R D E R
Whereas, the Director General of Police has sent
a proposal for detention of Shri Sushanta Kumar Banik,
S/o. Lt. Shanti Ch. Banik of Siddhiashram,
Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near Agartala Railway
5
Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura under PITNPS Act,
1988 along with records under Section 3(1) of the
Prevention of Illicit traffic in Narcotic Drugs and
Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988.
AND
Whereas, on perusal of records as submitted by
the Director General of Police, Tripura, it appears that
Shri Sushanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Late Shanti Ch.
Banik of Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha,
near Agartala Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura
under PITNPS Act. 1988 was involved in the following
cases :-
(i) Amtali PS Case No. 2019/AMT/208 dated
05.11.2019 22(b)/22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985.
(ii) East Agartala PS Case No. 2021 EAG 052 dated
25.04.2021 U/S 21(B)/29 of NDPS Act.
AND
Whereas, he has association with the smugglers
of NDPS articles and illicit drug traffickers in connection
with Amtali PS Case No. 2019/AMT/208 dated 05/
11/2019 U/S 22(b)/22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 and
East Agartala PS Case No. 2021 EAG 052 dated
25/04/2021 U/S - 21(B)/29 of NDPS Act.
AND
Whereas, the person is still active in illicit
trafficking of NDPS articles revealed from field
information but could not be arrested red-handed again
and issue of detention order under PITNDPS will also
help Police in initiating financial investigation laid down
under Chapter-V(A) of NDPS Act.
AND
Whereas, Shri Sushanta Kumar Banik, S/o. Late
Shanti Ch. Banik of Siddhiashram, Badharghat,
Kalimata Sangha, near Agartala Railway Station, PSAmtali, West Tripura was charge sheeted in Amtali PS
Case No. 2019/AMT/208 dated 05.11.2019 U/S
22(b)/22(C)/29 of NDPS Act, 1985 which was registered
following seizure of 92 gm brown sugar (Heroin) and
7600 nos yaba tablets. Investigation of the case has
revealed that he is involved in running in illegal
6
business of narcotics drugs throughout the State and
outside the State.
AND
Whereas, he is a kingpin in illegal trafficking of
narcotic drugs inside the State as well as outside the
State. He did not stop his illegal activities of narcotics
drugs and psychotropic substances even after his arrest
in previous case vide Amtali PS Case No. 208/19 and
East Agartala PS Case No. 52/2021. It shows his
determination is to continue his illegal NDPS business.
Illicit trafficking in narcotic drugs and psychotropic
substances caused a serious threat to the health and
welfare of the people and to protect the society from this
menace it is required to take stern action against the
person.
AND
Whereas, Director General of Police, Tripura has
proposed to prevent Shri Sushanta Kumar Banik, S/o.
Late Shanti Ch. Banik of Siddhiashram, Badharghat,
Kalimata Sangha, near Agartala Railway Station, PSAmtali, West Tripura from continuing his harmful and
prejudicial activity by engaging in illicit traffic of
narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in the
interest of society.
AND
Now, therefore, the undersigned, being the
specially empowered officer of the State Government in
exercise of powers conferred by sub-section (1) of
section (3) of the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 and
careful examination of the proposal of the Director
General of Police, Tripura and other supporting
documents, found sufficient grounds for detention of
Shri Sushanta Kumar Banik and being satisfied that
with a view to preventing him from engaging in illicit
traffic in NDPS, it is necessary to detain him and
accordingly it is directed for detention of Shri Sushanta
Kumar Banik S/o. Late Shanti Ch. Banik of
Siddhiashram, Badharghat. Kalimata Sangha, near
Agartala Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura.
It is mentioned that the accused Shri Sushanta
Kumar Banik S/o. Late Shanti Ch. Banik of
7
Siddhiashram, Badharghat, Kalimata Sangha, near
Agartala Railway Station, PS-Amtali, West Tripura may
submit his representation to the Central/State
Government against this order of detention. Such
representation may be submitted to the undersigned for
onward transmission to the Central/State Government.
The accused is to be informed that he will get all
reasonable opportunity for making representation
against this order to the Central/State Government, he
may therefore state to the undersigned what
opportunity he needed for this purpose. The accused is
to be appraised of his right to make representation
before the undersigned against this detention order. The
accused is to be informed that he also has a right to be
heard before the Advisory Board.
The concerned Superintendent of Central
Jail/District Jail/Sub-Jail is requested to depute a
responsible officer at the time of effecting detention
order to the addressee who will explain in details the
contents of this order along with grounds of detention.
Even assistance of another Government official or any
other person may be taken to brief him about the order
etc. in the language which the said accused person
understands in presence of two witness on receipt
signature or thumb impression in token from the
accused.
The concerned Superintendent of Central
Jail/District Jail/Sub-Jail is directed to extend all
assistance to the accused in making representation to
the concerned authority. The assistance provided by the
Superintendent of Central Jail/District Jail/Sub-Jail
may include stationary and any other items as desired
by the accused. The Superintendent of Central
Jail/District Jail/Sub-Jail will also provide a literate
person who shall assist the accused, if he is not literate,
in drafting the representation to the Central/State
Government.
Sd/- 12.11.2021
(A. Roy)
Secretary to the
 Government of Tripura”
8
6. Thus, from the aforesaid, it appears that the order of
preventive detention came to be passed essentially on the ground
that in the past two First Information Reports (FIR) were registered
against the appellant herein for the offences punishable under
Sections 22(b)/22(C)/29 and 21(B) resply of the Narcotic Drugs
and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (for short, ‘NDPS Act,
1985’) and is a habitual offender. The first FIR is dated 05.11.2019
and the second FIR is dated 25.04.2021. At the end of the
investigation of the FIR dated 05.11.2019, the charge sheet came
to be filed and the trial is pending as on date. The investigation so
far as the FIR dated 25.04.2021 is concerned, the same is shown
to have been pending on the date of the proposal. However, what
is important to note is that in both the aforesaid cases registered
under the NDPS Act, 1985, the appellant herein was ordered to be
released on bail by the Special Court, Tripura.
7. The appellant questioned the legality and validity of the
detention order by filing the Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2021 in
the High Court of Tripura at Agartala. The High Court vide the
impugned judgment and order dated 01.06.2022 rejected the writ
application thereby affirming the order of preventive detention.
9
8. In such circumstances referred to above, the appellant
(detenu) is before this Court with the present appeal.
ANALYSIS:
9. We have heard Ms. Madhumita Bhattacharjee, the learned
counsel appearing for the appellant detenu and Mr. Nachiketa
Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the State of Tripura.
10. Manifold contentions have been raised by the learned counsel
appearing on both the side.
11. We are persuaded to allow this appeal on the following two
grounds:
(i) Delay in passing the order of detention from the date of proposal
thereby snapping the “live and proximate link” between the
prejudicial activities and the purpose of detention & failure on the
part of the detaining authority in explaining such delay in any
manner.
(ii) The detaining authority remained oblivious of the fact that in
both the criminal cases relied upon by the detaining authority for
the purpose of passing the order of detention, the appellant detenu
was ordered to be released on bail by the special court. The
detaining authority remained oblivious as this material and vital
10
fact of the appellant detenu being released on bail in both the cases
was suppressed or rather not brought to the notice of the detaining
authority by the sponsoring authority at the time of forwarding the
proposal to pass the appropriate order of preventive detention.
DELAY IN PASSING THE ORDER OF DETENTION
12. We may recapitulate the necessary facts which have a bearing
so far as the issue of delay is concerned. The proposal to take steps
to preventively detain the appellant at the end of the
Superintendent of Police addressed to the Superintendent of Police
(C/S) West Tripura, Agartala is dated 28th of June 2021. The
proposal in turn forwarded by the Assistant Inspector General of
Police (Crime) on behalf of the Director General to the Secretary,
Home Department is dated 14.07.2021. The order of detention is
dated 12th of November, 2021. There is no explanation worth the
name why it took almost five months for the detaining authority to
pass the order of preventive detention.
13. There is indeed a plethora of authorities explaining the
purpose and the avowed object of preventive detention in express
and explicit language. We think that all those decisions of this
Court on this aspect need not be recapitulated and recited. But it
would suffice to refer to the decision of this Court in Ashok Kumar
11
v. Delhi Administration and Ors., (1982) 2 SCC 403, wherein
the following observation is made:
“Preventive detention is devised to afford protection to
society. The object is not to punish a man for having
done something but to intercept before he does it and to
prevent him from doing.”
14. In view of the above object of the preventive detention, it
becomes very imperative on the part of the detaining authority as
well as the executing authorities to remain vigilant and keep their
eyes skinned but not to turn a blind eye in passing the detention
order at the earliest from the date of the proposal and executing
the detention order because any indifferent attitude on the part of
the detaining authority or executing authority would defeat the
very purpose of the preventive action and turn the detention order
as a dead letter and frustrate the entire proceedings.
15. The adverse effect of delay in arresting a detenu has been
examined by this Court in a series of decisions and this Court has
laid down the rule in clear terms that an unreasonable and
unexplained delay in securing a detenu and detaining him vitiates
the detention order. In the decisions we shall refer hereinafter,
there was a delay in arresting the detenu after the date of passing
of the order of detention. However, the same principles would apply
even in the case of delay in passing the order of detention from the
12
date of the proposal. The common underlying principle in both
situations would be the “live & proximate link” between the
grounds of detention & the avowed purpose of detention.
16. In Sk. Nizamuddin v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 3 SCC
395, this Court while examining the necessity of securing the
arrest of the detenu immediately after the order of detention has
held thus:
“It would be reasonable to assume that if the District
Magistrate was really and genuinely satisfied after
proper application of mind to the materials before him
that it was necessary to detain the petitioner with a
view to preventing him from acting in a prejudicial
manner, he would have acted with greater
promptitude in securing the arrest of the petitioner
immediately after the making of the order of
detention, and the petitioner would not have been
allowed to remain at large for such a long period of
time to carry on his nefarious activities. Of course
when we say this we must not be understood to mean
that whenever there is delay in arresting the detenu
pursuant to the order of detention, the subjective
satisfaction of the detaining authority must be held to
be not genuine or colourable. Each case must depend
on its own peculiar facts and circumstances. The
detaining authority may have a reasonable
explanation for the delay and that might be sufficient
to dispel the inference that its satisfaction was not
genuine.”
Having held as above, Bhagwati, J. (as the learned Chief
Justice then was) pointed out that if there is any delay in arresting
13
the detenu pursuant to the order of detention which is prima-facie
unreasonable, the State must give reasons explaining the delay.
17. A similar contention was raised in Suresh Mahato v. The
District Magistrate, Burdwan, and Ors., (1975) 3 SCC 554, on
the basis of the dictum laid down in two decisions of this Court,
namely, SK. Serajul v. State of West Bengal, (1975) 2 SCC 78,
and Sk. Nizamuddin (supra) contending that the delay of the
arrest of the detenu in that case showed that the detaining
authority was not really and genuinely satisfied as regards the
necessity for detention of the detenu for otherwise he would have
tried to secure the arrest of the detenu promptly and not left him
free to carry on his nefarious activities. Bhagwati, J. (as the learned
Chief Justice then was) while dealing with this submission, made
the following observation:
“Now, there can be no doubt--and the law on this point
must be regarded as well settled by these two
decisions--that if there is unreasonable delay between
the date of the order of detention and the date of arrest
of the detenu, such delay, unless satisfactorily
explained, would throw considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the subjective satisfaction of the District
Magistrate and it would be a legitimate inference to
draw that the District Magistrate was not really and
genuinely satisfied as regards the necessity for
detaining the petitioner.”
14
18. Chinnappa Reddy, J. speaking for the Bench in Bhawarlal
Ganeshmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979) 1 SCC 465, has
explained as follow:
“It is further true that there must be a “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention
alleged by the detaining authority and the avowed
purpose of detention namely the prevention of
smuggling activities. We may in appropriate cases
assume that the link is “snapped” if there is a long and
unexplained delay between the date of the order of
detention and the arrest of the detenu. In such a case,
we may strike down an order of detention unless the
grounds indicate a fresh application of the mind of the
detaining authority to the new situation and the
changed circumstances. But where the delay is not only
adequately explained but is found to be the result of the
recalcitrant or refractory conduct of the detenu in
evading arrest, there is warrant to consider the “link”
not snapped but strengthened.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. (as the learned Chief Justice then
was) in Shafiq Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Meerut and Ors.,
(1989) 4 SCC 556, having regard to the fact that there was a delay
of two and a half months in detaining the petitioner (detenu)
therein, pursuant to the order of detention has concluded that
"there was undue delay, delay not commensurate with the facts
situation in that case and the conduct of the respondent authorities
betrayed that there was no real and genuine apprehension that the
detenu was likely to act in any manner prejudicial to public order.
15
The order, therefore is bad and must go". However, the learned
Judge observed that "whether the delay was unreasonable
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.”
20. It is manifestly clear from a conspectus of the above decisions
of this Court, that the underlying principle is that if there is
unreasonable delay between the date of the order of detention &
actual arrest of the detenu and in the same manner from the date
of the proposal and passing of the order of detention, such delay
unless satisfactorily explained throws a considerable doubt on the
genuineness of the requisite subjective satisfaction of the detaining
authority in passing the detention order and consequently render
the detention order bad and invalid because the “live and
proximate link” between the grounds of detention and the purpose
of detention is snapped in arresting the detenu. A question
whether the delay is unreasonable and stands unexplained
depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
21. In the present case, the circumstances indicate that the
detaining authority after the receipt of the proposal from the
sponsoring authority was indifferent in passing the order of
detention with greater promptitude. The “live and proximate link”
between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention
16
stood snapped in arresting the detenu. More importantly the delay
has not been explained in any manner & though this point of delay
was specifically raised & argued before the High Court as evident
from Para 14 of the impugned judgment yet the High Court has
not recorded any finding on the same.
VITAL MATERIAL OR VITAL FACT WITHHELD AND NOT
PLACED BY THE SPONSORING AUTHORITY BEFORE THE
DETAINING AUTHORITY
22. As noted above, in the case on hand, in both the cases relied
upon by the detaining authority for the purpose of preventively
detaining the appellant herein, the appellant was already ordered
to be released on bail by the concerned Special Court.
Indisputably, we do not find any reference of this fact in the
proposal forwarded by the Superintendent of Police, West Tripura
District while requesting to process the order of detention. The
reason for laying much stress on this aspect of the matter is the
fact that the appellant though arrested in connection with the
offence under the NDPS Act, 1985, the Special Court, Tripura
thought fit to release the appellant on bail despite the rigours of
Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985. Section 37 of the NDPS Act,
1985 reads thus:
17
“Section 37. Offences to be cognizable and nonbailable.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)—
(a) every offence punishable under this Act shall
be cognizable;
(b) no person accused of an offence punishable
for offences under section 19 or section 24 or
section 27A and also for offences involving
commercial quantity shall be released on bail or
on his own bond unless—
(i) the Public Prosecutor has been given an
opportunity to oppose the application for such
release, and
(ii) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the
application, the court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that he is not
guilty of such offence and that he is not likely to
commit any offence while on bail.
(2) The limitations on granting of bail specified in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) are in addition to the
limitations under the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in
force, on granting of bail.”
23. A plain reading of the aforesaid provision would indicate that
the accused arrested under the NDPS Act, 1985 can be ordered to
be released on bail only if the Court is satisfied that there are
reasonable grounds for believing that the accused is not guilty of
such offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while
on bail. If the appellant herein was ordered to be released on bail
despite the rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act, 1985, then the
same is suggestive that the Court concerned might not have found
any prima facie case against him. Had this fact been brought to
18
the notice of the detaining authority, then it would have influenced
the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other on the
question whether or not to make an order of detention. The State
never thought to even challenge the bail orders passed by the
special court releasing the appellant on bail.
24. In Asha Devi v. Additional Chief Secretary to the
Government of Gujarat and Anr., 1979 Crl LJ 203, this Court
pointed out that:
“… if material or vital facts which would influence the
minds of the detaining authority one way or the other
on the question whether or not to make the detention
order, are not placed before or are not considered by the
detaining authority it would vitiate its subjective
satisfaction rendering the detention order illegal."
25. In Sk. Nizamuddin (supra) this Court observed as under:
"We should have thought that the fact that a criminal
case is pending against the person who is sought to be
proceeded against by way of preventive detention is a
very material circumstance which ought to be placed
before the District Magistrate. The circumstance might
quite possible have an impact on his decision whether
or not to make an order of detention. It is not altogether
unlikely that the District Magistrate may in a given case
take the view that since a criminal case is pending
against the person sought to be detained, no order of
detention should be made for the present, but the
criminal case should be allowed to run its full course
and only if it fails to result in conviction, then preventive
detention should be resorted to. It would be most unfair
to the person sought to be detained not to disclose the
19
pendency of a criminal case against him to the District
Magistrate."
26. From the above decisions, it emerges that the requisite
subjective satisfaction, the formation of which is a condition
precedent to passing of a detention order will get vitiated if material
or vital facts which would have bearing on the issue and weighed
the satisfaction of the detaining authority one way or the other and
influence his mind are either withheld or suppressed by the
sponsoring authority or ignored and not considered by the
detaining authority before issuing the detention order.
27. It is clear to our mind that in the case on hand at the time
when the detaining authority passed the detention order, this vital
fact, namely, that the appellant detenu had been released on bail
by the Special Court, Tripura despite the rigours of Section 37 of
the NDPS Act, 1985, had not been brought to the notice and on
the other hand, this fact was withheld and the detaining authority
was given to understand that the trial of those criminal cases was
pending.
28. The preventive detention is a serious invasion of personal
liberty and the normal methods open to a person charged with
commission of any offence to disprove the charge or to prove his
innocence at the trial are not available to the person preventively
20
detained and, therefore, in prevention detention jurisprudence
whatever little safeguards the Constitution and the enactments
authorizing such detention provide assume utmost importance
and must be strictly adhered to.
29. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal succeeds and
is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by
the High Court of Tripura is set aside. The order of preventive
detention passed by the State of Tripura dated 12.11.2021 is
hereby quashed and set aside. The appellant herein is ordered to
be released forthwith from custody if not required in any other
case.
30. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
……………………………….CJI.
 (UDAY UMESH LALIT)

 ....…......………….………….J.
(S. RAVINDRA BHAT)


 ...……...…………….………..J.
NEW DELHI; (J.B. PARDIWALA)
SEPTEMBER 30, 2022

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

संविधान की प्रमुख विशेषताओं का उल्लेख | Characteristics of the Constitution of India

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर