Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 5074 (MAD)

R. Senthamarai v. The Secretary to the Government

2010-11-18

C.S.KARNAN, M.CHOCKALINGAM

body2010
Judgment :- 1. Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the Second Respondent in Memo No.330/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V./2010 dated 4.6.2010, whereby the son of the Petitioner viz., Guna @ Gunasekaran was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as “Goonda”. 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 three adverse cases viz., (i) Crime No.633 of 2007 registered by P2 Otteri Police Station for the offence under Sections 341, 332, 336, 427, 395, 494, 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.631 of 2007 registered by P2 Otteri Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 392 and 506 (2) of the Indian penal Code; (iii) Crime No.266 of 2010 registered by K7 ICF Police Station for the offences under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.267 of 2010 registered by K7 ICF Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 307, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 20.5.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, 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. While advancing arguments on behalf of the Petitioner. Learned Counsel would submit that in the ground case in Crime No.267 of 2010, the detenu has filed a Bail Application in Crl.M.P. No.4778 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 1.6.2010. The detention order came to be passed on 4.6.2010. In the Special Report, the dismissal of the said Petition in Crl.M.P. No.4778 of 2010 was shown as 2.6.2010 and not 1.6.2010. In this regard, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority since the Special report is the relied on document, but not done so. 5. The detention order came to be passed on 4.6.2010. In the Special Report, the dismissal of the said Petition in Crl.M.P. No.4778 of 2010 was shown as 2.6.2010 and not 1.6.2010. In this regard, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority since the Special report is the relied on document, but not done so. 5. Learned Counsel added further that remand requisition was placed before the V Metropolitan Magistrate as found in page No.205 of the booklet in the ground case, wherein it has been specifically stated that proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under the Goonda’s Act. In such circumstances, it is quite clear that it was predetermined. On the 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 three adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 8. It is not controversy that in the ground case in Crime No.267 of 2010, the detenu has filed a Bail Application in Crl.M.P. No.4778 of 2010 before the Sessions Court, Chennai and the same was dismissed on 1.6.2010. The detention order came to be passed on 4.6.2010. In the Special report, the dismissal of the said Petition in Crl.M.P.No.4778 of 2010 was shown as 2.6.2010 and not 1.6.2010. In this regard, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority since the Special Report is the relied on documentary, but not done so. 9. Added further, remand requisition was placed before the V Metropolitan Magistrate as found in page No.205 of the booklet in the ground case, wherein it has been specifically stated that he proceedings have been initiated against the detenu under the Goonda’s Act. In such circumstances, it is quite clear that it was pre-determined. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 10. In such circumstances, it is quite clear that it was pre-determined. 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 Second Respondent in Memo No.330/B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V./2010 dated 4.6.2010, the detenu, namely, Guna @ Gunasekaran, who is now confirmed 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.