Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1893 (MAD)

Chellammal v. The State of Tamil Nadu & Another

2003-11-19

P.K.MISRA, T.V.MASILAMANI

body2003
Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard Mr.N. Elavarasan for the petitioner and Mr.M.K. Subramanian, Government Advocate for the respondents. 2. The order of preventive detention dated 22.2.2003 passed by the District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvallur District under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 is being challenged in the present Habeas Corpus Petition. 3. The detention order dated 22.2.2003 is based on the ground case registered in Sevvapet Police Station Cr.No.49/2003 under Sections 147, 148, 427 and 506(2) IPC on 1.2.2003. In the order of detention, there is a recital to the effect that detenu has been remanded in connection with the said case and there is imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for the offence under sections 147,148,427 and 506(ii) IPC by filing bail application in Court. However, it is an admitted fact that detenu was also in custody in connection with a more serious offence in Cr.Nos.47 and 48/2003 of the same police station, wherein the allegation was to the effect that detenu and others have committed offence under Sections 147,148,302 and 506(ii) IPC. There is no reference in the order passed by the detaining authority regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in connection with those cases. In other words, even though the detaining authority was conscious of the fact that the detenu was likely to be released on bail in the ground case, where the offence was less serious in nature, he was not considered the fact whether accused persons were likely to be released on bail in the adverse cases, where the offence was more serious in nature. This would indicate the non-application of mind of the relevant factor on the part of the detaining authority. On this ground, the order of preventive detention is liable to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also contended that representation made on behalf of the detenu had not been disposed of expeditiously. This submission also appears to be acceptable. From the materials on record, it appears that representation dated 15.3.2003 was received on 17.3.2003 and remarks were called for on 21.3.2003. However, remarks were sent by the sponsoring authority only on 17.4.2003, which was received on 24.4.2003. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Investigating Officer had been transferred. However, details of transfer were not furnished in the counter. However, remarks were sent by the sponsoring authority only on 17.4.2003, which was received on 24.4.2003. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Investigating Officer had been transferred. However, details of transfer were not furnished in the counter. In the absence of any detailed reason given for such a long delay, we are inclined to accept this contention raised on behalf of the petitioner. 5. For the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order of detention is set aside. Habeaus Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with some other case.