SENTHAMILSELVI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 24 · Decided: 09-06-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SENTHAMILSEL VI 
v. 
STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. 
JUNE 9, 2006 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] 
Preventive Detention-Detention order, challenged to on the ground 
that there was delay in disposal of representation; non-supply of copy of 
• ' 
c 
confessional statement of co-accused relied upon by the Detaining Authority; 
and that the Authority erred in inferring the possibility of detenu being released 
on bail, when no application was filed-Dismissed by High Court-Correctness 
of-Held: Representation was dealt with, with utmost expedition, there was no 
remissness, indifference or avoidable delay on the part of the Authority--
Confessional statement of ca-accused merely finds a reference in the detention 
D order; and the likelihood of the detenu being released on bail was subjective 
satisfaction olthe Authority based on materials-Hence, order of High Court 
does not call for interference. 
G was arrested on the ground of suspicion and thereafter, detention 
order was passed. Appellant-detenue's mother challenged the detention 
E order on the ground that there was delay in disposal of representation; 
that since the detenu had not filed any bail application, the detaining 
authority could not have inferred that there was possibility of his being 
released on bail; and that the copy of the confessional statement of co-
accused relied upon by the Detaining Authority was not supplied to the 
F detenu. High Court dismissed the petition. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l.l. There can be no hard and fast rule as to the measure of 
reasonable time and f'ach case has to be considered from the facts of the 
G case and if there is no negligence or callous inaction or avoidable red-
tapism on the facts of a case, the Court would not interfere. It is the duty 
of the Court to see th.at 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 
H 
24 
..... 
SENTHAMILSELVI v. STA TE OF TAMIL NADU 
25 
< 
entrusted with their application. When there is remissness, indifference A 
or avoidable delay on the part of the authority, the detention becomes 
vulnerable. In the instant case, the factual scenario indicates that the 
-
representation was dealt with, with utmost expedition. The writ petition 
was filed even before the order of rejection was served. That being so the 
detenu cannot make grievance that the State had not explained the position B 
as to how his representation was dealt with. (27-C-E) 
1.2. There is distinction between a relied upon document and a 
, 
document which has been referred to without being relied upon. A bare 
.. 
reading of the grounds of detention in the instant case shows that the 
detenu was not arrested on the basis of the co-accused's statement. The c 
grounds of detention merely refer to the confession by the co-accused. That 
does not form foundation for the detention. On the contrary, it has been 
clearly stated in the ground of detention the detenu was arrested on 
suspicion. It appears that the detenu himself made a confession and that 
was the main factor on which the order of detention was founded. It is 
not disputed that the confessional statement of the detenu was supplied D 
to him. Thus, the High Court was justified in coming to the conclusion 
that though reference was made to co-accused's statement that was not 
relied upon for the purpose of detention. (27-F-H; 28-C; 28-F-G) 
Powanammal v. State of T.ty. and Anr., (1999] 2 SCC 413, relied on. E 
1.3. Whether prayer for bail would be accepted depends on 
circumstances of each case and no hard and fast rule can be applied. The 
only requirement is that the detaining authority should be aware that the 
~'...-
detenu is already in custody and is likely to be released on bail. The 
conclusion that the detenu may be released on bail cannot be ipsi-dixit of F 
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. The detaining 
authority also indicated as to why he was of the opinion that there is 
likelihood of detenu being released on bail. Therefore, order of High Court G 
does not warrant interference. (29-A-E

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.