Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 3751 (MAD)

Ukkaji v. The Secretary to Government (Home)

2010-08-25

M.CHOCKALINGAM, M.SATHYANARAYANAN

body2010
Judgment :- (M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) 1. This petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu, challenging the order in BDFGISSV No.356 of 2009 dated 5.10.2009, whereby the detenu Misraram was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. 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 two adverse cases viz. (1) C3 Seven Wells Police Station Crime No.577 of 2009 for the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and (2) C3 Seven Wells Police Station Crime No.490 of 2009 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and the ground case in Crime No.580 of 2009 registered by C3 Seven Wells Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 395 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 21.8.2009 and the detenu was arrested on the same day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials available on record and after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the detention order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that no bail application was filed in anyone of the adverse cases or the ground case, but the Detaining Authority has observed in the order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which is without any material much less cogent material. 5. Learned counsel added further that the petitioner was actually arrested on 21.8.2009 and he was produced before the Court on 22.8.2009 and remand was extended then and there. The remand extension was made on 17.9.2009 till 1.10.2009 as found in page No.150 of the booklet and the detention order came to be passed on 5.10.2009. The detenu was judicially remanded till 1.10.2009 and the order of detention came to be passed on 5.10.2009. In respect of interregnum period, no remand extension was placed in the hands of the Detaining Authority. The detenu was judicially remanded till 1.10.2009 and the order of detention came to be passed on 5.10.2009. In respect of interregnum period, no remand extension was placed in the hands of the Detaining Authority. Because of the non supply of the vital document, the detenu could not make the effective representation, which would vitiate the detention order. 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, pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in two adverse cases and one ground case referred to above has passed the detention order after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, actually, no bail application was filed either in adverse cases or in the ground case. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. When no bail application is filed, the observation of the Detaining Authority is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require. 9. Apart from the above, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detenu was arrested on 21.8.2010 and produced before the VIII Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai on 22.8.2010 and remanded upto 4.9.2009 and the remand was extended periodically from 4.9.2009 to 7.9.2009, from 7.9.2009 to 17.9.2009 and from 17.9.2009 upto 1.10.2009 and the order of detention was passed on 5.10.2009 and thus, insofar as the extension of remand from 1.10.2009 till the passing of the order on 5.10.2009 is concerned, the copy was not actually supplied to the petitioner and he was actually deteriorated from making effective representation and the same would cause prejudice to the detenu. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 10. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the respondent in BDFGISSV No.356 of 2009 dated 5.10.2009. The detenu, namely, Misraram, 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.