ពាក្យក្នុងមួយនាទី
202
Darsh_KEWAT
00:00
ល្បឿន
The learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 INSC 1288 and contended that informing the arrestee about the grounds of arrest is mandatory in all the offences and grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing to the arrestee in the language in which she or he understands. He further submitted that the non-compliance of the above said condition would make the arrest and the subsequent remand order vitiated and the accused person shall be set free. Relying upon the above said judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the arrest intimation has not been given in writing to the family members.It is only a printed format and hence, he prayed for setting aside the order of remand. Per contra, the learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) appearing for the respondent submitted that the arrest memo clearly indicates that all of them were arrested while they were carrying 200 kg of ganja for smuggling into Srilanka. He further pointed out that the grounds of arrest were intimated to the accused persons the same has been signed by all the accused persons in the presence of the witnesses, the Sub Inspector of Police, Keelaiyur Police Station and therefore, it is clear that the grounds of arrest is not defective in nature and it has been provided in writing to the accused persons. The learned Government Advocate (Crl.side) had further submitted that the arrest intimation has been given to the wife/relatives/parents of the respective accused person through phone and SMS on the same date. He further pointed out that the mobile of the relatives are also mentioned in the arrest intimation to which the messages and the phone calls have been made.Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relating to the grounds of arrest and intimation of the arrest to the family members have strictly been complied with. He also relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1702 (State of Karnataka Vs. Sri Dharshan Etc.,) and contended that if the accused is made aware of the arrest grounds in substance, even if not conveyed in writing, it is sufficient.
The grounds of detention furnished to the petitioner are factually incorrect, vague, and devoid of any material nexus with the purpose of preventive detention under the The alleged grounds neither disclose any incorrect or false acts on the part of the petitioner; additionally, establish any proximate or live link" between the petitioner and any illicit trafficking activity as contemplated under of the Act. The impugned detention order is thus based on non-existent, irrelevant, and extraneous considerations, rendering the "subjective satisfaction" of the Detaining Authority illusory and arbitrary. In the counter affidavits filed by the respondents, it has been submitted that the petitioner is habitual offender involved in and therefore the detention order passed under Act is justified. District Magistrate, State Government and Advisory Board have properly considered the case of the petitioner and his detention order has been affirmed. apposite at this stage to take note of the statutory regime of the Act of 1988. the empowers the authorized officers, either of the Central Government or of a State Government, to detain any person view to prevent him/her from engaging in illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. requires a State Government that passes such a detention order to forward a report the Central Government within ten days. mandates communication of the grounds on which the detention order has been made to the detenu as soon as may be after the detention, but ordinarily not later than five days and in exceptional circumstances and for reasons to be recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention. The sub-section records that this requirement is for the purposes of of the Constitution, which mandates such communication as soon as may be. of the Act of 1988 provides that the grounds of detention are severable and an order of detention shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is either found to be vague, nonexistent, irrelevant or not connected with such persons or is invalid for any other reason. specifically records that where a person has been detained pursuant to an order of detention under, which has been made on two or more grounds, such order shall be deemed to have been made separately on each ground.
ពាក្យក្នុងមួយនាទី
0
wpm
ភាពត្រឹមត្រូវ
0%
អនុវត្តអត្ថបទ - ពេលវេលា 1290 - English
ពាក្យក្នុងមួយនាទី