Madras High Court
Nagammal vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 26 May, 2020
Bench: M.M.Sundresh, P.T.Asha
HCP No.2828 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 26.05.2020
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH
and
The Hon'ble Ms. Justice P.T.ASHA
H.C.P.No.2828 of 2019
Nagammal ... Petitioner
-vs-
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Rep.by The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Thiruvannamalai District,
Thiruvannamalai. ... Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the
order of detention passed in D.O.No.93/2019-C2 dated 20.11.2019
passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and directing the
respondents to produce the petitioner's son by name Ramesh
S/o.Muniyandi, aged about 24 years before this Court now confined in
Central Prison, Vellore set him at liberty.
For Petitioner .. Mr.K.Thenrajan
For Respondents .. Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
Page 1 of 6
http://www.judis.nic.in
HCP No.2828 of 2019
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of Ramesh, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Muniyandi, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.93/2019-C2 dated 20.11.2019, holding him to be a "Goonda”, as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the 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.The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case relied on by the detaining authority is not similar in nature and the offences in the ground case are totally different. Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper.
Page 2 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2828 of 2019
4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:
"5.I am aware that Thiru.Ramesh is remanded in judicial custody and lodged in Central Prison, Vellore in ground case in Cheyyar Police Station Cr.No.686/2019 u/s 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. Further, I submit no bail petition has been filed so far on behalf of the accused Thiru.Ramesh before any court of laws. Further the Sponsoring Authority has filed a Special Report stating that the relatives of the accused Thiru.Ramesh was trying to release the accused on bail in the ground case. Further in a similar case in Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Cr.No.695/2013 u/s. 323, 302 IPC against 1.Thiru.Vetrivel, 2.Thiru.Ramu and
3.Thiru.Elumalai, bail was dismissed by the District Sessions Court, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.M.P.No.3794/2013 dated 25.11.2013 and they were released on bail by the order the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.290/2014 dated 07.01.2014. Hence I infer that there is a real possibility of his (Thiru.Ramesh) coming out on bail by filing bail application before appropriate Court, since bails are granted by the courts in such case. If he came out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities Page 3 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2828 of 2019 which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order....."
5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration the similar case registered u/s 323, 302 IPC in Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Cr.No.695/2013, bail was granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.290/2014 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The similar case relied on by the authority was registered for the offences under Sections 323, 302 IPC in Tiruvannamalai Town Police Station Cr.No.695/2013 whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC r/w Sec. 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage & Loss) Act, 1992. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.93/2019-C2 dated 20.11.2019, Page 4 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2828 of 2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ramesh, male, aged 24 years, S/o.Muniyandi, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.M.S.,J.) (P.T.A.,J.)
Index:Yes/No 26.05.2020
mmi/ms
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
Page 5 of 6http://www.judis.nic.in HCP No.2828 of 2019 M.M.SUNDRESH, J.
and P.T.ASHA, J.
(mmi/ms) H.C.P.No.2828 of 2019 26.05.2020 Page 6 of 6 http://www.judis.nic.in