Supreme Court sets aside Tripura High Court ruling that detenu cannot gain benefit due to non-supply of document

The Supreme Court on Friday set aside an order passed by the Tripura High Court ruling that if a detenu were not prejudiced by non-supply of a particular document, they cannot gain any benefit merely by claiming that the document mentioned in the detention order was not supplied. [Sri Sushanta Kumar Banik v. The State Of Tripura].A Bench of Chief Justice of India Uday Umesh Lalit with Justices S Ravindra Bhat and JB Pardiwala allowed the appeal due to the unexplained delay of detention and also because of bail orders being withheld by the detaining authorities."We are allowing this appeal on two grounds: first on unexplained delay of detention which has snapped the live link. Second is withholding bail orders by detaining authorities," the Court said..Petitioner Sushanta Kumar Banik was detained under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances (PIT NDPS) Act. Investigation in the case revealed that he was involved in running an illegal business of narcotic drugs throughout the State and outside.An order of detention was issued pursuant to the proposal of the Director General of Police (DGP). In his proposal, the DGP proposed for the petitioner’s preventive detention.A habeas corpus petition was subsequently filed before the High Court on behalf of the petitioner, seeking his release from detention..One of the main grounds on which he challenged his preventive detention order is that in the order, the detaining authority referred to the records submitted by the Director General of Police, but copies of those records were not furnished to him, rendering him unable to make a representation challenging the order.The High Court, however, held that unless he can show how he was prejudiced by non-supply of a particular document, he could not gain any benefit merely by agitating that a document mentioned in the detention order was not supplied to him."It is not necessary to supply each and every document which has been referred to in the detention order merely for the purpose of narration of facts," the High Court had said.This prompted the appeal before the apex court..Explaining the importance timely arrest following a detention order in cuch cases, the Bench stated, " ... 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."On the second ground of his release, the top court noted that his being granted bail by a lower court indicated that there might not have been any prima facie case against him. "Had this fact been brought to 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.".After observing the above, the Supreme Court allowed his appeal against the High Court order."2 FIRs were not IPC but narcotics offences...special court granted bail and this order was withheld. In aforesaid this appeal succeeds," the judges explained while dictating the order.It, therefore, set aside the High Court order as well as the preventive detention order and directed that the appellant be released forthwith..Advocate Madhumita Bhattacharjee appeared for the appellant detenu and advocate Nachiketa Joshi appeared for the State of Tripura.[Read judgment]