‘Extraordinary power in the hands of a precautionary detention state, it should be used in restraint’- SC

The Supreme Court said that the precautionary detention is an extraordinary power given to the state, which should be used with restraint. The court, along with this, dismissed the order of the District Magistrate to detain a moneylender, who was allegedly involved in illegal activities again after getting bail in four cases.

Bail conditions were violated

A bench of Supreme Court Judge Sanjay Karol and Judge Manmohan questioned the argument of the authority who took into custody that the order was passed because the person detained had violated the conditions of bail in these cases. The bench said that instead the authority should have filed a petition in the competent court to cancel the bail.

Kerala High Court canceled the decision

The Supreme Court said in an order pronounced on Friday, ‘Therefore, the disputed verdict of September 20, 2024 is canceled by the Kerala High Court in Ernakulam, on the September 20, 2024. The appeal is approved in view of the facts and circumstances of this case.

Use should not be done under normal conditions-SC

The bench underlined that the power of precautionary custody is recognized under Article 22 (3) (B) in the Constitution. The Supreme Court said, ‘The provision of precautionary custody is an extraordinary power in the hands of the state, which should be used with restraint. This provision limits a person’s freedom based on the possibility of a crime being committed in future, and hence it should not be used under normal circumstances. ‘

Court rejected arguments

The bench dismissed the argument of the authority who issued an order to take into custody that the detained person Rajesh, who ran a private financial company called ‘Ritika Finance’, was violating the conditions of bail on him in cases that were considered to pass the order of custody.

Armed detention order was confirmed

The court said that no application has been filed in any of the four cases, alleging violation of such conditions by the defendant in any of the four cases. The bench said that in addition, they have not been mentioned even during the hearing of the case filed by his wife against the order of the Kerala High Court, in which the District Magistrate of Palakkad confirmed the order of precautionary custody.

The order cannot be retained- court

The Supreme Court said, ‘Keeping in mind the above interpretations of the law, we have no doubt that the order of custody cannot be retained. The circumstances stated in the order by the detained authority may have sufficient basis to contact the competent courts to cancel the bail for the state, but it cannot be said that his precautionary custody is justified for this.

The maximum period of custody was over

The bench said, “We clarify that if such an application is made by the defendant state to cancel the prisoner’s bail, it should be decided by unaffected by the above comments.” The Supreme Court had ordered the release of the captive on December 10, 2024 as its detention period under the Act expired. (With language input)

Latest india news