Madras High Court
P. Manokaran vs The State on 13 September, 2010
Author: M. Chockalingam
Bench: M. Chockalingam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:- 13.09.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
H.C.P. No.855 of 2010
P. Manokaran ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State,
rep. by the Secretary to
Government, Home,
Prohibition and Excise
Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Sub Urban Area,
St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai 600 016. ` ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records culminating in the detention of the petitioner's son Raja @ Simon @ Kutty detained under Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 2.1.2010 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings in No.BDFGISSV/01/2010 quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr. V. Murugesan
For Respondents : Mr. Babu Muthumeeran
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This petition is brought forth by the father of detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in No.BDFGISSV/01/2010 dated 2.1.2010, whereby the detenu Raja @ Simon @ Kutty was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in four adverse cases viz. (i) Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station Crime No.647 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Thiruvallur Taluk Police Station Crime No.724/2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.915/2009 for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and (iv) T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.917/2009 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b) read with 384 of the Indian Penal Code and ground case in Crime No.920 of 2009 registered by T-12 Poonamallee Police station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 392, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 13.12.2009 and the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 14.12.2009, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, while attacking the order under challenge, would urge that he moved for bail applications in the third and fourth adverse cases before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee on 14.12.2009 vide Crl.M.P. Nos.6139 and 6135 of 2009 and the same were dismissed on 30.12.2009. But no bail application was moved in the ground case. But the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
5. Learned counsel would further urge that a special report was claimed to have been made, but it did not contain the date as to when it was placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority and thus, it was not made known to the detenu as to whether the same was considered by the Detaining Authority or not. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to four adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8. In paragraph 4 of the detention order, it is stated as follows:-
" 4. I am aware that Thiru. Raja @ Simon @ Kutty is in remand in T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No's.915/2009, 917/2009 and 920/2009. He has filed a bail application in T-12 Poonamallee P.S. Cr.No.915/2009 and 917/2009 before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Poonamalle Court on 14.12.2009 vide Crl.M.P. Noas.6139/2009 and 6135/2009 respectively and the same were dismissed on 30.12.2009. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing another bail application before the Court of Sessions or Hon'ble High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the above 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. 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 public health and public order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Raja @ Simon @ Kutty is a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to detain him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982."
9. From the above, it is clear that the detenu moved for bail applications in the third and fourth adverse cases before the Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee on 14.12.2009 vide Crl.M.P. Nos.6139 and 6135 of 2009 and the same were dismissed on 30.12.2009. But no bail application was moved in the ground case. Thus, it would be quite evident that when the order of detention came to be passed, no bail application was pending before any Court of criminal law and hence the observation of the Authority is without any basis, material much less cogent material, which vitiates the detention order.
10. Added further, a special report was claimed to have been made, but it did not contain the date as to when it was placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority. Needless to say that a special report, which was placed by the Sponsoring Authority before the Detaining Authority was also a relied upon document. If to be so, it must contain the date, but the special report did not contain the date which should be taken as a ground to vitiate the detention order. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
11. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.BDFGISSV/01/2010 dated 2.1.2010. The detenu, namely, Raja @ Simon @ Kutty, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.C.J.) (M.S.N.J.) 13.09.2010 Index :- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
To
1.The Secretary to Government, Home, The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City Sub Urban Area, St. Thomas Mount, Chennai 600 016.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. & M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
ssa.
H.C.P. No.855 of 201013.09.2010