Madras High Court
V.Saraswathi vs The Commissioner Of Police on 11 June, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 11.06.2014 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P. No.2696 of 2013 V.Saraswathi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Egmore, Chennai 8. 2.State rep. By Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.1404/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 22.10.2013 passed by the first respondent, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Gopi, S/o.Venkatesan, aged 23 years TPDA No.3264, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in Memo No.1404/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 22.10.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law
1.
S-7 Madipakkam Police Station, Crime No.746/2010 147, 148, 324, 506(ii) IPC
2. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1318/2011 147, 148, 294(b), 326, 307, 427 IPC
3. S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.1939/2013 384, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-7 Madipakkam Police Station in Crime No.1955 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.
3.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu in respect of the ground case in Crime No.1955 of 2013, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the crime number of the ground case has been wrongly mentioned as Crime No.955 of 2013 instead of 1955 of 2013.
4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point. He would submit that it is a typographical error and it will not affect the rights of the detenu.
5.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:
"4.I am also aware that Thiru.Gopi who was remanded in S-7 Madipakkam P.S. Cr. Nos.1939/2013 & 1955/2013 and he has filed a bail petition in S-7, Madipakkam P.S.Cr.No.1939/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai vide Crl.M.P.No.9246/2013 and the same was dismissed on 08.10.2013. Again he has moved a bail petition for S-7 Madipakkam PS Cr.No.1939/2013 before the court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.9510/2013 and the same is pending. He has not moved any bail petition for S-7 Madipakkam PS.Cr.No.1955/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru.Gopi's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in S-7 Madipakkam PS.Cr.No.955/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court......."
6.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction, taking into account the statement of the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail in the ground case in Crime No.1955 of 2013. There is no material available in the booklet to show that the relatives are taking action to file bail application for the detenu in the ground case. A copy of the special report is found in Page Nos.181 and 182 of the booklet and there is no mention that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to file bail application for the detenu. Apart from that, in para 4 of the grounds of detention, the crime number of the ground case has also been wrongly mentioned as Crime No.955 of 2013 instead of 1955 of 2013. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not supported by any material and it vitiates the order of detention. For the above reasons, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
7.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Gopi made in Memo No.1404/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 22.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
(V.D.P.,J.) (G.C.,J.) 11.06.2014 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No mmi To
1.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Police, Egmore, Chennai 8.
2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
V.DHANAPALAN, J.
and G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
mmi
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
HCP No.2696 of 201311.06.2014