Madras High Court
Alagumeena vs The Additional Chief Secretary To ... on 26 June, 2019
Author: M.Sathyanarayanan
Bench: M.Sathyanarayanan, B.Pugalendhi
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 26.06.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI
H.C.P(MD)Nos.129 and 140 of 2019
Alagumeena ... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD) No.129/2019
Balamurali ... Petitioner in H.C.P.(MD) No.140/2019
Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate,
Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Madurai Central Prison,
Madurai District. ...Respondents in both petitions
Common Prayer: Habeas Corpus Petitions filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus,
calling for the entire records, connected with the detention orders of the
Respondent No.2 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.Nos.01/2019 and 02/2019,
respectively dated 23.01.2019 and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the detenus by name
Manikandan, S/o. Karuppaiah aged about 37 years and Balamurali @ Ovayan,
http://www.judis.nic.in
2
S/o. Kannan aged about 26 years, respectively, now detained at Central
Prison, Madurai before this Court and set them at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner in both : Mr.R.Alagumani
Petitions
For Respondents in both : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu
Petitions Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
COMMON ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.) Both the Habeas Corpus Petitions are taken up and disposed of by this common order, as the impugned orders of detention came to be passed, based on the one and same solitary case.
2.The wife of the detenu is the petitioner in H.C.P.(MD)No.129 of 2019 and the detenu himself is the petitioner in H.C.P.(MD)No.140 of 2019. Challenging the legality of the impugned orders of detention dated 23.01.2019, passed by the second respondent, in and by which, the detenus have been branded as Goondas under the provisions of 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), the present petitions are filed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 3
3.A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose that the detention orders came to be passed, based on a solitary case registered by Karuppayurani Police Station in Crime No.186 of 2018, for the commission of offence under Sections 147, 148 and 302 IPC. A perusal of the FIR would disclose among other things that according to the de facto complainant namely Nagendiran, a resident of Sethupathi Nagar, Panangadi, Madurai, he became aware of the cock fight programme and therefore, he and his younger brother went in a two wheeler and so also the detenus herein and while they were returning, some persons came in a dark green colour car and intercepted them and a white car also dashed against the two wheeler of Aravind and he had fallen down and seven persons had stepped down and indiscriminately attacked him and as a consequence, he died on the spot.
4.The detenus and other accused were arrested on 08.11.2018 and they voluntarily came forward and gave a confession statement, leading to the recovery of the incriminating articles and discovery of the facts. They were produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai on 09.11.2018 and were ordered to be remanded to judicial custody till 23.11.2018. The Detaining Authority, on a perusal and consideration of the materials, has derived the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenus were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public peace and order http://www.judis.nic.in 4 and as such, branded them as Goondas and detained them under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, by clamping the impugned orders of detention and challenging the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petitions are filed.
5.The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention and would submit that the detenus are in custody in connection with the ground case and admittedly, they did not file any bail application. Though in sub paragraph No.5 of detention orders, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is real and imminent possibility of the detenus coming out on bail and indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order, no material whatsoever has been produced by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority and in the absence of such relevant and vital materials, the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority in that regard is wholly vitiated and hence prays for quashment of the impugned orders of detention.
6.Per contra, Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State by drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the counter affidavits would submit that the http://www.judis.nic.in 5 Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind has rightly clamped the orders of detention and prays for dismissal of these petitions.
7.This Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.
8.As rightly pointed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the detenus have been arrested in connection with the ground case and they did not file any bail application so far and no material whatsoever has been produced to show that some attempts have been made by the detenus to file applications for bail and in the absence of such vital material, there is no real and imminent possibility of the detenus coming out on bail and indulge in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order and therefore, the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority is wholly vitiated.
9.In the considered opinion of this Court, the above said infirmities would vitiate the impugned orders of detention passed by the second respondent and are liable to be quashed.
http://www.judis.nic.in 6
10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed by setting aside the Orders of Detentions passed by the second respondent herein, namely, The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.01/2019 and B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.02/2019 dated 23.01.2019. Consequently, the detenus, namely, Manikandan, son of Karuppaiah, aged about 37 years and Balamurali @ Ovayan, son of Kannan, aged about 26 years, who are now detained at Central Prison, Madurai, are directed to be released forthwith unless their presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other cases/proceedings.
[M.S.N., J.] [B.P., J.]
26.06.2019
Index : Yes / No
Internet : Yes / No
dsk/gk
To
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Madurai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.
http://www.judis.nic.in 7
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in 8 M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
and B.PUGALENDHI, J.
dsk/gk H.C.P(MD)Nos.129 and 140 of 2019 26.06.2019 http://www.judis.nic.in