- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has challenged the impugned detention order dated 16 -2 -2001 passed under COFEPOSA, copy of which is Annexure 1 to the petition. One of the grounds taken in this petition is that there was delay in executing the detention order. On this ground, that is, the ground of delay in executing the detention order, the facts are identical to the cases of Balbir Singh Sethi v. Union of India, Habeas Corpus Writ Petition No. 3176 of 2002, allowed by us on 24 -4 -2002 [since reported in 2002(2) JIC 83 (All)]. That was the case of the co -accused and almost the same period of delay in executing the detention order is unexplained in the present case. From the counter -affidavit of the respondent filed in this writ petition it appears that there is no explanation for the delay in executing the detention order from 16 -2 -2001 when the detention order was passed to 10 -4 -2001 when the stay order was passed in a writ petition in this court. This was the first period of delay which is unexplained. As observed by us in our decision in Balbir Singh Sethi's case (since reported in 2002(2) JIC 83 (All)), it is not enough for the respondents to make a bald averment in the counter -affidavit that the petitioner was absconding. The respondents should have mentioned whether after the detention order was passed the police went to the residence of the petitioner and to the other places which the petitioner frequents to arrest him. No such averment is there in the counter -affidavit. The second period of delay is from 15 -1 -2002 when the Supreme Court vacated the stay order passed by this Court till 19 -3 -2002 when the petitioner surrendered. From Annexure -1 to the counter - affidavit it appears that police went to arrest the petitioner for the first time on 14 -3 -2002, and this leaves unexplained why the police did not go to the petitioner's residence or other place he frequents to arrest the petitioner from 15 -1 -2002 to 14 - 3 -2002. Thus both the periods of delay are unexplained as was in the case of Balbir Singh Sethi's case (supra). Hence following our decision in Balbir Singh Sethi's case (supra), this petition has to be allowed.
(3.) WE are not going to other grounds submitted by Sri A.D. Giri, learned Counsel for the petitioner as we are allowing the petition on the ground mentioned above.;