Madras High Court
Mangavaram vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 4 March, 2014
Author: V. Dhanapalan
Bench: V. Dhanapalan, G. Chockalingam
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Date :: 04.03.2014
Coram ::
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam
H.C.P. No: 2254 of 2013
Mangavaram
W/o. Selvam
No: 12 Sunami Quarters
Nethaji Nagar
Eravur
Chennai 600 057. ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
Prohibition and Excise Dept.
Fort St. George
Chennai 0 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Egmore
Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents
.. .. ..
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus praying for a direction to call for the records relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the second respondent in No: 1032/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 18.09.2013 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Viswanathan, S/o. Selvam, male aged 30 years (Goonda) now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For petitioner :: M/s. K. Madhan
For respondents :: Mr. P. Govindarajan
Additional Public Prosecutor
.. .. ..
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by V. Dhanapalan, J.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 18.09.2013 made in Memo No: 1032/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2. As per the grounds of detention dated 18.09.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :-
Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 H8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Cr. No: 233 of 2000 U/s. 379 I.P.C. 2 H8 Thiruvottiyur Police Station Cr. No: 03 of 2012 U/s. 379 I.P.C. 3 M7 Manali New Town Police Station Cr. No: 2484 of 2012 U/s. 379 I.P.C. 4 M8 Sathangadu Police Station Cr. No: 3377 of 2012 U/s. 379 I.P.C. 5 M8 Sathangadu Police Station Cr. No: 1407 of 2013 U/s. 392 I.P.C.
3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 07.09.2013 morning at about 10.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, M7 Manali New Town Police Station, in Crime No. 796 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294 (b), 336, 427, 392 and 506 (ii) r/w 397 I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day i.e. on 07.09.2013 at 13.30 hours and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Ponneri, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 20.09.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.
4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the question of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in relying on the statement alleged to have been made by the sponsoring authority as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in Cr. No: 1407 of 2013, which is the 5th adverse case and submits that the special report of the sponsoring authority does not disclose any such information and therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed on that sole ground.
5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.
6. A perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenu on 18.09.2013 branding him as a "Goonda". Such an order contains the details of all the five adverse cases in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 07.09.2013. In paragraph 4 of the detention order the detaining authority has stated that, " The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr.Viswanathan are taking action to take him on bail in M8 Sathangadu Police Station Cr. No: 1407/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court."
A perusal of the Special Report annexed at Page No: 146 of the booklet shows that the sponsoring authority has not disclosed any such information about the action of the relatives of the detenu taking steps to file a bail application in connection with Cr. No: 1407 of 2013. That being the actual position, we fail to understand as to how the detaining authority had formed an opinion that relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file a bail application in Cr. No: 1407 of 2013 and that there is a real possibility of the detenu being granted bail by the concerned Court, particularly, in the absence of any such information provided to him by the sponsoring authority. Hence, the detention order passed, relying on material information not available on record, cannot be sustained in law.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
and G. Chockalingam, J.
7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Thiru.Viswanathan, S/o.Selvam, made in No: 1032/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 18.09.2013, 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.
Index : Yes ( V.D.P.J. ) ( G.C.J. )
Website : Yes 04..03..2014
gp
To
1. The Secretary to Govt.
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Dept.
Fort St. George
Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police
Egmore
Chennai 600 008.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No: 2254 of 2013