Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Madras High Court

V.Pandi Alias Periya Pandi vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 7 January, 2010

Author: P.Murgesen

Bench: P.Murgesen

       

  

  

 
 
 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 07/01/2010

CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO

H.C.P.(MD) No.688 of 2009

V.Pandi alias Periya Pandi			..		Petitioner

Vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
  rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
  Fort St.George,
  Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magisrate,
  Theni District,
  Theni. 					..		Respondents


	Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the
second respondent in Detention Order No.10/2009 dated 04.08.2009 and quash the
same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, Pandi @
Chinnapandi @ Attack Pandi, S/o Velusamy, now detained at Central Prison,
Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.

!For Petitioner ... Mr.N.Ananda Kumar
^For Respondents... Mr.Daniel Manohar,
	            Addl.Public Prosecutor

:ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu, who has been detained under Section 3(1) 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 by order of the second respondent in No.10/2009 dated 04.08.2009 by branding him as a 'GOONDA'.

2. There are six adverse cases and one ground case as against the detenu. The details of the adverse cases are as under:-

Sl. Police Station Section of Law No. and Crime No.

1. Kurangani Police Station 379 IPC.

2. Perungudi Police Station 379 IPC.

3. Thirumangalam P.S. 379 IPC.

4. Sivagangai Police Station 366(A) and 506(ii) IPC.

5. Bodinayakanur Town P.S. 324, 307, 506(ii) r/w 34 IPC.

6. Karimedu Police Station 341, 302, 506(ii) IPC.

The ground case was registered under Section 392 IPC r/w 25(1)(A) of Indian Arms Act on the file of the Bodinayakanur Town Police Station in Crime No.410 of 2009. In the ground case, the detenu was arrested on 08.07.2009 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur on the same day and remanded to judicial custody up to 22.07.2009. Thereafter, the remand period was extended up to 05.08.2009. The detention order was clamped on the detenu on 04.08.2009.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the order of detention passed by the second respondent is vitiated on two grounds; firstly, the detaining authority had not satisfied itself as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and secondly, there was delay in considering the representation of the detenu.

4. We have perused the materials on record carefully and meticulously.

5. The first ground relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is that, the detaining authority had not satisfied itself as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It is observed in the impugned detention order that the detenu has moved a bail application in Cr.M.P.No.2305 of 2009 before the Judicial Magistrate, Bodinayakanur and the same was dismissed on 22.07.2009 and that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application before the same Court or High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Courts. The detaining authority has not relied upon any material to arrive at this conclusion. The detaining authority has passed the impugned order on the basis of presumptions. In the absence of any material, it is clear that the detaining authority had not satisfied itself as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, we are of the considered view that on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

6. Another ground relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner is that there was delay in considering the representation of the detenu. In this connection, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, has submitted a Proforma. It is stated in the Proforma as under:-

Representation received on : 29.09.2009 Remarks called for on : 30.09.2009 Remarks received on : 16.10.2009 File submitted on : 19.10.2009 Under Secretary dealt with on : 19.10.2009 Deputy Secretary dealt with on : 20.10.2009 Minister for Law dealt with on : 20.10.2009 Rejected letter prepared on : 23.10.2009 Rejection letter sent to the detenu : 26.10.2009 Rejection letter served on to the detenu on : 27.10.2009 Though the Minister for Law dealt with the representation on 20.10.2009, the rejection letter was sent to the detenu only on 26.10.2009. This delay was not properly explained with reason. Therefore, we are of the considered view that on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

7. In view of the above, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.10/2009 dated 04.08.2009 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

KM To

1.The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magisrate, Theni District, Theni.