SNEKA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Vignesh, aged 24 years, S/o.Mani. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in B3/D.O.No.09/2022 dtd. 8/4/2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Sec. 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

(3.) Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that there is gross violation of procedural safeguards, which would vitiate the detention. The learned counsel, by placing authorities, submitted that the representation made on behalf of the detenu was not considered in time and there was an inordinate and unexplained delay.