Madras High Court
S.Rajakumari vs The Secretary To The Government on 3 June, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 03.06.2014 Coram: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2467 of 2013 S.Rajakumari ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 21.09.2013 in Memo No.1068/BDFGISSV/2013 against the petitioner husband Surendrababu, male, aged 48 years, S/o.Alagirisamy, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Vel For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor * * * * * * O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1068/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.09.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law
1.
B.1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No.1854/2012 147, 148 & 302 IPC 2. B.1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No.272/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 384 and 506(ii) IPC 3. B.1 North Beach Town Police Station Crime No.427/2013 341, 336, 427, 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, N.1 Royapuram Police Station in Crime No.817/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority has stated in the detention order that in a case registered in Crime No.393/2013, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5411/2013 on 30.04.2013, a copy of the said order has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.
5. On a careful reading of the detention order and on scrutiny of the booklet, it is seen that though the detaining authority, in paragraph 4 of the detention order has stated that in a case registered at N.1 Royapuram Police Station in Crime No.393/2013 under Sections 341, 323, 384, 427, 336, 337 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5411/2013 on 30.04.2013, a copy of the same is not furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation for redressal of his grievance. For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder:
4. I am aware that Thiru. Surendrababu is in remand in N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.863/2013 and he moved a bail application for N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.863/2013 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11869/2013 and the same is pending. In a case registered at N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.393/2013 registered under Sections 341, 323, 384, 427, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.5411/2013 on 30.04.2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in N.1 Royapuram Police Station Cr.No.863/2013, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the Courts after a lapse of time. ... Thus, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention.
6. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Surendrababu made in BDFGISSV No.1068/2013 dated 21.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
7. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.
[V.D.P.J.,] [G.C,J.,] 03.06.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes abe To:
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
V.Dhanapalan, J.
and G.Chockalingam, J.
abe Order in H.C.P.No.2467 of 2013 Dated: 03.06.2014