Madras High Court
Nandhini vs The Inspector Of Police on 9 June, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated: 09.06.2014 Coram :- THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.2358 of 2013 Nandhini ... Petitioner/Wife -vs- 1. The Inspector of Police, K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station, Chennai-600 107. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 008. 3. The Secretary to Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Chennai-600 009. ... Respondents Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention passed by the 2nd respondent in No.1122/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 25.09.2013, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Rajesh @ Yamaha Rajesh, S/o.Babu, male aged 28 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner : Dr.G.Krishnamoorthi 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 detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.1122/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 25.09.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law
1.
R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.573 of 2012 Sections 341, 147, 148, 427 and 302 IPC
2. K-10, Koyambedu Police Station, Crime No.1235 of 2013 Sections 294(b), 323, 385, 427 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, K-11, CMBT Police Station in Crime No.1137 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 385, 427, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.
3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that there is a wrong mention of Court in the impugned order, which granted bail to the detenu in respect of Crime No.1137 of 2013, ground case, 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 scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order:
"4. I am also aware that Thiru.Rajesh @ Yamaha Rajesh who was remanded in K-11, CMBT P.S. Cr.No.1137/2013 has filed bail petition in K-11, CMBT P.S. Cr.No.1137/2013 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai vide Crl.M.P.No.2238/2013 and the same is pending.
6. On a cursory look at the Page No. 209 of the booklet, it is noticed that the detenu has moved bail application in Crl.M.P.No.2238 of 2013 before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai against Crime No.1137 of 2013, ground case and already obtained bail. In contradiction, the detaining authority has wrongly mentioned in the impugned order that the detenu has filed bail petition before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai and the same is pending. Giving wrong information with regard to the Court and status of the case would definitely take away the right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India besides showing non application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such subjective satisfaction. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable and is liable to be set aside.
7. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Rajesh @ Yamaha Rajesh, S/o.Babu, made in No.1122/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 25.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude 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.,] 09.06.2014 Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No ar V.Dhanapalan, J.
and G.Chockalingam, J.
ar To
1. The Inspector of Police, K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station, Chennai-600 107.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Secretary to Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Chennai-600 009.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras Habeas Corpus Petition No.2358 of 2013 09.06.2014