Madras High Court
S.Shareefa Begum vs The Principal Secretary To Government on 18 December, 2018
Author: R.Subbiah
Bench: R.Subbiah, B.Pugalendhi
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 18.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
H.C.P.(MD)No.1478 of 2018
S.Shareefa Begum : Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise(xiv) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Palayamkottai Central Prison,
Tirunelveli.
4.The Inspector of Police,
Shenkottai Circle Police Station,
Tirunelveli District. : Respondents
PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the
entire records connected with the detention order in M.H.S.Confdl
No.115/2018 dated 28.09.2018 on the file of the respondent No.2 and
quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the
body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Shahul Hameed,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
S/o.Kamaludeen, aged about 35 years now confined at Central Prison,
Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ajmal Khan, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.A.S.Alaudeen
For R1 to R4 : Mr.V.Neelakandan
Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., "Shahul Hameed”, S/o.Kamaludeen, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 28.09.2018, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as “Goonda”. Challenging the same, he has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.When the matter is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there are no cogent materials to show that there is an imminent possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail. In this regard, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.6 of the detention order. The said Paragraph is extracted hereunder:
“6.I am aware that Thiru.Shahulhameed, filed a bail petition before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in CRMP No.5272/2018 in Shenkottai Police Station crime number 403/2018 and the bail petition was dismissed on 26.09.2018 and further, in this case, he filed a another bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai in CRMP No.6859/2018 on 19.09.2018 and further, in this case, he file a another bail petition before the same Court in CRMP No6946/2018 on 24.09.2018 and the bail petitions are yet to be disposed. I am aware that he filed a bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai in CRMP No.6953/2018 on 24.09.2018 in Shenkottai Police Station crime number 409/2018 and the bail petition is yet to be disposed. I am also aware that he is very likely to come out on bail in the above cases. I am also aware that in a similar case bail has been granted to Kamall alias Musthafa Kamall in CRMP No. http://www.judis.nic.in 4 6883.2009 on 16.12.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, ?
Shenkottai. I therefore, infer that there is very likely of Thiru.Shahulhameed coming out on bail in Shenkottai Police Station Crime Numbers 403 of 2018 and 409/2018; since bails are granted by the appropriate courts in such cases. I am aware that Thiru.Shahulhameed is in remand in Shenkottai Police Station crime number 410/2018 and in this cae he has not filed any bail application so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in future by filing bail application for the above cases since in similar cases bails are granted by the appropriate courts. I am also aware that in a similar case bail has been granted to Kamaal alias Musthafa Kamaal in CRMP No.6883/2009 on 16.12.2009 by the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai. I therefore, infer that there is real possibility of his (Thiru.Shahulhameed) coming out on bail in Shenkottai Police Station crime number 410.2018; since bails are granted by the appropriate courts in such cases. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities in future, which will be pre-judicial to the maintenance of the 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 the public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru.Shahulhameed is a “Goonda” and http://www.judis.nic.in 5 there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.”
4.In paragraph No.6 of the detention order, the detaining authority observed that in similar case in the year 2009 bail was granted in CRMP No.6883 of 2009, on 16.12.2009, by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai. Therefore, the detaining authority had state that there is likelihood of the petitioner coming out on bail in the present case also. But, the present case has been registered in Crime No.410 of 2018 against the petitioner for offence under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 324, 506(ii), 120(B) and 153(A) IPC, whereas in Cr.M.P.No.6883 of 2009 bail was granted for the offences under Sections 153(A), 295 and 427 IPC. Without considering these aspects, the detaining authority has stated in his order that for similar offence bail was granted in the year 2009, which shows that the order was passed mechanically, which vitiates the entire detention order. On that ground the order is liable to be set aside.
5. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his http://www.judis.nic.in 6 proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl No.115/2018 dated 28.09.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, "Shahulhameed”, S/o.Kamaludden, aged about 35 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.
[R.P.S., J.] & [B.P., J.] 18.12.2018 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No Ns To
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise(xiv) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli.
4.The Inspector of Police, Shenkottai Circle Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7 R.SUBBIAH, J AND B.PUGALENDHI, J Ns Order made in H.C.P.(MD)No.1478 of 2018 Dated: 18.12.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in