Madras High Court
Mageswari vs The Secretary To Government on 12 December, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.994 of 2012 Mageswari ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. 2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District. ... Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the respondent No.2 in P.D.No.32/2012, dated 28.07.2012 and quash the same and direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's husband by name Manikandan, son of Thangavel Chettiar, aged about 35 years, detained in Trichy Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Alagumani ^For Respondents... Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
*********** [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Manikandan, S/o.Thangavel Chettiar , who has been detained, under sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short 'Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982'), pursuant to the order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings, in P.D.No.32/2012, dated 28.07.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 28.07.2012, the detenu had been lodged in Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed before this Court, challenging the detention order of the second respondent, dated 28.07.2012.
2. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that there was no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that there were no materials available before the Detaining Authority to arrive at such a conclusion. As such, the Detaining Authority had arrived at the conclusion, without proper application of mind.
3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Detaining Authority concerned had stated, in the grounds of detention, that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as an order had been passed, in a similar case, wherein statutory bail had been granted. However, it cannot be said that a bail order would be passed in favour of the detenu in the ground case, automatically. As such, there is no proper application of mind by the detaining authority in stating that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application. Therefore, the impugned detention order passed against the detenu is arbitrary, illegal and void.
4. The learned counsel had pointed out that the Detaining Authority concerned had mentioned about the similar case, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention. The relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention reads as follows:-
"6. I am also aware that Manikandan is in remand as remand prisoner in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime Numbers 167/2012. The bail applications moved by him were dismissed as detailed below:-
Sl. No. Name of the Police Station Crime Number and Section of Law Name of Court Date of filing Disposal/Present Stage
1.
Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime No.167/2012 Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur 12.07.2012 Dismissed on 19.07.2012 in Cr.M.P.No.2338/2012
2. Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime No.167/2012 High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench 26.07.2012 Pending in Crl.O.P.No.10825/2012 In similar case registered in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Crime Number 408/2011 u/s 341, 386 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C. and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of (Damage & Loss) Act, 1992 bail was granted by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur in Cr.M.P.No.14707, dated 19.08.2011. Hence, there is a real possibility of his (Manikandan) coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Manikandan is a Goonda and there is compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Order under the provision of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982."
5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on behalf of the respondents, had submitted that, in view of the fact that an order had been passed, in a similar case, granting bail, as stated by the Detaining Authority, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
6. In the present case, from the records available before this Court, in paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention, dated 28.07.2012, furnished to the detenu, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand, as a remand prisoner, in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, Cr.No.167 of 2012. The detaining authority has further stated that the bail application moved by him in the said case had been dismissed by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, on 19.07.2012, in Cr.M.P.No.2338 of 2012. It has also been stated that the matter relating to Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station Cr.No.167 of 2012 is pending on the file of Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, in Crl.O.P.No.10825 of 2012. He had further stated that in a similar case registered in Kumbakonam Taluk Police Station, in Cr.No.408/2011, under Sections 341, 386 and 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Property Prevention of (Damage & Loss) Act, 1992, bail had been granted by the Principal District Sessions Judge, Thanjavur, in Cr.M.P.No.14707 of 2011, dated 19.08.2011. However, it cannot be said that a bail order would be passed in favour of the detenu, in the ground case, automatically. As such, there is no proper application of mind by the detaining authority in stating that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application.
7. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the conclusion of the Detaining Authority that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order cannot be sustained, as it is not based on all the relevant and necessary materials. Further, there has been no proper application of mind, by the Detaining Authority, before arriving at such a conclusion. As such, this Court finds it appropriate to quash the impugned detention order. Accordingly, the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, dated 28.07.2012, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus petition stands allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case or cause.
jikr To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Thanjavur District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.