Madras High Court
Mani vs The Secretary To The Government on 2 June, 2014
Author: V.Dhanapalan
Bench: V.Dhanapalan, G.Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated: 02.06.2014 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2185 of 2013 Mani ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai City. ... Respondents Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 03.09.2013 in Memo No.886/BDFGISSV/2013 against the petitioner's son Saravanan @ Kaisappi Saravanan, male, aged 23 years, S/o.Mani, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.J.Murugan 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 father 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 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.886/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.09.2013.
2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law
1. P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No.169/2013 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 120(b), 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC
2.
P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No.881/2013 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 336, 386 & 506(ii) IPC
3. P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No.1078/2013 294(b), 323, 427, 336, 397 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1083/2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 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 mainly focused his arguments on the ground that when no bail application is filed by the detenu or by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention 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, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein, in paragraph 4 it is stated thus:
4.... The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Saravanan @ Kaisappi Saravanan is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1078/2013 before the appropriate court. In a similar case registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.160/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.929/2013. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1083/2013 and there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1078/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases, bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.''
6. On a close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 03.09.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing a bail application in respect of Crime No. Crime No.1078/2013, the third adverse case, without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in a mechanical manner, which shows clear non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion. Thus, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.
7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Saravanan @ Kaisappi Saravanan made in Memo No.886/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu 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 the 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.] 02.06.2014 Index : Yes Internet : Yes abe To
1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai City.
3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
V.DHANAPALAN,J.
and G.CHOCKALINGAM,J.
abe Order in H.C.P.No.2185 OF 2013 Dated: 02.06.2014