Madras High Court
M.Suganthi vs The Secretary To The Government on 18 December, 2012
Author: M.Jaichandren
Bench: M.Jaichandren
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:18/12/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU HABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD) No.1150 of 2012 M.Suganthi ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai- 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District. ... Respondents Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings in M.H.S.Confdl.No.70/2012 dated 11.8.2012 and quash the same and consequently, set the detenu, by name, T.Muthukrishnan, S/o.Thangaraj Nadar, (male, aged 29 years), who is presently, confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand ^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, T.Muthukrishnan, S/o.Thangaraj Nadar, 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 M.H.S.Confdl.No.70/2012 dated 11.08.2012. In view of the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 11.08.2012, the detenu had been lodged in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. The present Habeas Corpus petition has been filed before this Court, challenging the detention order of the second respondent, dated 11.08.2012.
2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had pointed out that in paragraph 6 of the grounds in the Detention Order, the detaining authority had stated that he is aware that the detenu had filed a petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in CRMP No.13445/2012 in Palavoor Police Station Crime Number 140/2012 and the bail petition is yet to be disposed. Therefore, he has also stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case since in similar cases bails had been granted by the Court concerned or by the higher Courts. This clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention order.
3. The relevant paragraph of the grounds of detention reads as follows:-
" 6. I am aware that the anticipatory bail was granted to Thiru.Muthukrishnan before the High Court Chennai, Madurai Bench in CrlOP (MD)No.2641/2012 on 28.04.2012 in Panagudi Police Station Crime Number 102/2012.
I am aware that he has filed a bail petition before the Judicial Magistrate, Valliyoor in CRMP No.13445/2012 in Palavoor Police Station Crime Number 140/2012 and the bail petition is yet to be disposed. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned court or higher courts. I am also aware that in similar case bail has been granted in CRMP No.3240/2012 on 08.08.2012 by the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli. I am aware that he is in remand in Panagudi Police Station Crime Number 310/2012 and in this case, he has filed a bail petition before the Sessions Court, Tirunelveli in CRMP No.3240/2012 and the bail was granted to him on 08.08.2012. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities in future, which will be pre-judicial to the maintenance of public order and public health. 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 and public health. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that Thiru.Muthukrishnan is a "Sand Offender" and 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 and public health under the provisions of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982."
4. 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 real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
5. 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 11.08.2012, 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.
asvm To
1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai- 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
3.The Inspector of Police, Panagudi Police Station, Tirunelveli District.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, Madurai.