Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the 2nd respondent while passing the impugned detention order has not followed the principles established by law because they have not informed the detention to the family members of the detenu. The 2nd respondent Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, in paragraph 4 of the detention order has observed that her son got arrested in connection with a ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, http://www.judis.nic.in 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 and the order also specifically mentions that the detenu has filed a Bail Petition before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai in Crl.M.P.No.2391/2019 and the same was pending disposal as on the date of the detention order i.e. 15.07.2019. The detention order further says that one co-accused by name Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8539/2019 on 25.06.2019. Therefore, the 2nd respondent appears to have inferred that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the above case and if he comes out on bail, he would indulge in future activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The above reasoning given by the Detaining Authority shows that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind properly for the reason that the 2nd respondent failed to consider the fact that at the time of passing the detention order whether the said bail application was pending before the Sessions Court or not, but nowhere in the detention order the detaining authority mentioned about the date of filing the bail application, date of hearing, date of pending disposal http://www.judis.nic.in whereas the detention order has been passed on 15.07.2019 without verifying the pendency of the bail application. Hence, this non- application of mind would vitiate the impugned detention order, it is pleaded.

4. A detailed Counter affidavit has been filed by the 2nd respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Madurai city, Madurai. http://www.judis.nic.in

5. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents opposing the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has come to adverse notice in the ground case registered by B4 Keeraithurai Police Station Crime No. 412/2019 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959. Though the detenu also has moved the bail application, the same was pending. As per the ground case, one Vasantha, w/o.Pandian is residing at Flat No.572, TNHB Colony, Anuppanadi, Madurai for rent and her ancestral house is located at Door No.50/216, Subbammal Compound, Sinthamani Main Road, Madurai. While so, one Jeyanthlal is residing at the ground floor for lease whereas one Seenivasan is residing at the first floor of the house for rent. On 18.04.2019 at about 12.00 hours, Vasantha came to the said house and was sitting on the stairs in the ground floor. Around 13.00 hours, M.S.Pandian, son-in-law of V.K.Gurusamy, who was known to her, came there running and rushing inside the house where Jeyanthilal is residing in the ground floor. It is, at that time, 5 persons armed with http://www.judis.nic.in deadly weapons chased the said M.S.Pandian and trespassed into the house and all of them attacked M.S.Pandian repeatedly with aruvals and swords. When Vasantha tried to prevent them, the five persons threatened to cut and kill her also. Therefore, she raised alarm. However, the said M.S.Pandian was indiscriminately attacked. Thereafter, when she went inside the house, she found M.S.Pandian was lying in a pool of blood with cut injuries. An amputated finger of M.S.Pandian was found inside the house. At the entrance of the house, a bullet and a broken cell phone were also found. Thereafter, the said victim was shifted to nearby Velammal Hospital by an ambulance. However, he was pronounced dead by the doctors.

6. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that thereafter, Vasantha came to B4 Keeraithurai Police Station and prepared a complaint statement requesting action, based on which a FIR in B4 Keeraithurai P.S.Cr.No.412/2016 for offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC was registered. After thorough investigation, the accused Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai, S/o.Alagarsamy and Muthupandi, S/o.Kumar were arrested on 24.04.2019 and their confession statements were also recorded. http://www.judis.nic.in Besides, the case properties, namely, a Two Wheeler was seized from Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and a sword and Aruval were seized from Muthupandi under Athachi. Thereafter, the duo were produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai on 24.04.2019 and remanded to judicial custody at the Central Prison, Madurai. On 27.04.2019, Manikandan @ Chinna Vavuthalai and Muthupandi were transferred to the District Prison, Ramanathapuram and their remand period was extended up to 22.07.2019. Further, the investigation reveals that there was a previous enmity prevailing between V.K.Gurusamy and Rajapandi of Keeraithurai area over political rivalry and family disputes for years together. Due to that, both the parties carried out their revenge murders. Recently, V.K.Gurusamy's son V.K.G.Mani and son-in-law M.S.Pandian kidnapped Thoppilli Muniyasamy S/o.Rajapandi, murdered him and burnt his body into ashes. Therefore, in order to take revenge, the supporters of Rajapandi murdered one Muniyasamy on 12.06.2018 mistaking him as M.S.Pandian. In continuation, Kalimuthu @ Vellaikali, relative of Rajapandi insisted the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan on several occasions to murder M.S.Pandian. Under such circumstances, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan joining with other accused Rambabu, http://www.judis.nic.in Selvam @ Pinam Thinni, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari came in a car, armed with deadly weapons driven by Padam @ Muniyasamy. Chinna Vavuthalai followed them on a two wheeler with Muthupandi as a Pillion Rider. The accused Muthukumar @ Pattakumar was driving another two wheeler with Vinothkumar @ Seda Vinoth as pillion rider and followed them and all of them rushed to Nagupillai Thope. After seeing M.S.Pandian going on walk, the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan, who was in the car shot M.S.Pandian with a pistol in his possession. On hearing the sound, M.S.Pandian, escaped from them and ran away. Immediately the detenu Boomi @ Boominathan, Selvam @ Pinam Thinni armed with big aruval, Soundarapandi @ Pachaikari armed with a big sword, Muthupandi and Chinna Vavuthalai armed with deadly weapons chased M.S.Pandian and attacked him indiscriminately. On seeing this, when Vasantha tried to prevent them, the assailants threatened her also and fled away from there by car and two wheelers. They have also robbed a Two Wheeler TN 59 BP 5477 creating panic and feeling of insecurity in the minds of the local people and thereby acted in a manner prejudicial to the public order. Even the shopkeepers there also closed their shops and the vehicle riders came on that way also returned.

http://www.judis.nic.in

11. Secondly, the detenu was in remand in the ground case in Crime No.412/2019 of B4 Keeraithurai Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii) and 302 of IPC altered into Sections 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392 and 302 of IPC and Section 25(1- A) of the Arms Act, 1959 altered into Section 120-B, 147, 148, 448, 506(ii), 392, 302 of IPC and 25(1-A) Arms Act, 1959 in Central Prison, Palayamkottai and on the date of passing of the detention order i.e. on 15.07.2019, the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.2391/2019 was pending disposal. Besides, the bail was granted by the Madurai Bench of this Court in Crl.O.P.(MD) No.8539/2019 on 25.6.2019 to Muniyasamy @ Padam Muniyasamy, co-accused of the detenu Rambabu in the above said ground case. Therefore, in the detention order, the 2nd respondent has rightly stated that bail application on behalf of the detenu was pending disposal in Crl.M.P.No.2391/2019 on the date of detention order i.e. 15.07.2019 and a booklet containing legible copy of the case diary, grounds of detention in English and the translated version in Tamil Language was also supplied to the detenu along with the detention order. In view of the above, taking note of the fact that the co-accused was granted bail by the Madurai Bench of http://www.judis.nic.in this Court, it was found that there is a real possibility of the detenu to get bail in Crl.M.P.No.2391/2019. Therefore, the 2nd respondent has rightly come to the conclusion that the detenu having involved in the ground case, acted prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and created panic and insecurity in the minds of the people on that locality. Hence we are of the view that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the 2nd respondent Detaining Authority for passing the detention order holds consideration.