Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1915 (MAD)

Pattu v. The State of Tamil Nadu

2003-11-21

P.K.MISRA, T.V.MASILAMANI

body2003
Judgment :- T.V. Masilamani, J. The petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition on behalf of her son who has been detained as a 'GOONDA' by the order of detention dated 21.3.2003 passed by the second respondent under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootlegger, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, and Slum Grabbers Act 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) read with G.O.Ms.No.4 Prohibition and Excise Department dated 18.7.2003 issued under Section 3(2) of the Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) appearing for the respondents and perused the records of the case. 3. Though several contentions have been raised in the grounds adumbrated in the petition, the main ground emphasised by the petitioner is with reference to the bail application filed by the detenu before the Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P.No.2583 of 2003 on 18.3.2003 and it is urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though notice was given to the sponsoring authority on the same day in the said bail application, the detaining authority without applying his mind mechanically stated that by filing the bail application there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Hence, he has urged that the detention order is vitiated by such non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the same. He has referred us the decision, 1999 (2) M.W.N.(Cr.) 248 (ESAAC v. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPT., CHENNAI) in support of such contention and urged this Court to set aside the order of detention. On a careful perusal of the said decision, it is seen that in similar circumstances, the bail application filed by the detenu in that case was not brought to the notice of the detaining authority and therefore the order of detention was quashed. Here also, the order of detention (vide) paragraph 4 reads as follows:- "I am aware that Tr.Karthik @ Karthikeyan is in remand and there is imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 353, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. by filing bail application in the Court. Here also, the order of detention (vide) paragraph 4 reads as follows:- "I am aware that Tr.Karthik @ Karthikeyan is in remand and there is imminent possibility that he may come out on bail for the offences under Sections 341, 332, 353, 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. by filing bail application in the Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." In fact, the bail application filed by the detenu in this case was pending on 21.3.2003, the date of detention order passed by the second respondent and therefore we are inclined to rely on the ratio laid down in the said decision to come to the conclusion that the second respondent herein has not applied his mind on this aspect while passing the detention order. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the representation dated 11.4.2003 made by the detenu has not been considered promptly, a careful perusal of the records would show that there is no delay in considering the representation made by the detenu and therefore we are unable to accept the contention of the petitioner's counsel on this aspect of the matter. 5. Nextly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the grounds of detention and urged that the detaining authority has not evaluated the efficacy of the records produced before him while passing the detention order. He has urged that when the crime was registered in the police station at 17.00 hours by the Inspector of Police in respect of the occurrence at 16.00 hours on 14.3.2003, he could not have seized the weapon of offence at the scene of occurrence situate 1-1/2 kms away from the police station at 17.00 hours on the same day. A careful perusal of the records disclose that the Inspector who registered the case at 17.00 hours in the police station was said to have recovered the weapon of the offence at the scene of occurrence situate 1-1/2 kms away from the police station at the same time (vide) the F.I.R. and seizure mahazar produced in this case. A careful perusal of the records disclose that the Inspector who registered the case at 17.00 hours in the police station was said to have recovered the weapon of the offence at the scene of occurrence situate 1-1/2 kms away from the police station at the same time (vide) the F.I.R. and seizure mahazar produced in this case. We are therefore of the opinion that the contention of the petitioner in this respect has to be accepted and we hold that the detaining authority has not applied his mind on this aspect also in passing the detention order. For the reasons stated above, we find that the order of detention is liable to be quashed and therefore the H.C.P. is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed against the petitioner. 6. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned order of detention is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other case.