Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1592 (MAD)

Prem @ Premkumar v. Commissioner of Police

2011-03-21

C.NAGAPPAN, P.R.SHIVAKUMAR

body2011
Judgment :- P.R. SHIVAKUMAR, J. 1. The petitioner, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 based on the order of detention passed by the first respondent in Detention Order No.187 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 holding him to be a "Goonda" as per the definition found in Section 2(1)(f) of the said Act, has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition for quashing the said order of detention. 2. The detaining authority referred to a single case, namely the ground case registered on the file of S8, Adambakkam Police Station as Crime No.521 of 2010 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and expressed a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is to be termed "Goonda" and his presence at large will be detrimental to the maintenance of public order and hence, clamping of an order of detention on him is necessitated. 3. Though several grounds have been raised for assailing the order of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding habituality of the petitioner in committing offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code is not based on sufficient materials and on the other hand, based on a solitary incident, the detaining authority has arrived at such a subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits further that no habituality can be inferred, however graver the offence might be, from the solitary incident. 4. We have also heard the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has chosen to clamp the order of detention stamping the petitioner as a "Goonda" based on the ground case alone, namely Crime No.521 of 2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC on the file of S8, Adambakkam Police Station. Even in the narration of facts in the grounds of detention there is no recital to the effect that the petitioner was found to have been involved in any other incident prior to the incident that led to the registration of the ground case. Even in the narration of facts in the grounds of detention there is no recital to the effect that the petitioner was found to have been involved in any other incident prior to the incident that led to the registration of the ground case. A solitary incident, based on which the ground case has been registered, is not enough to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is habitually involved in the commission of offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of IPC. Therefore, we are satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the petitioner was habitually committing offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of IPC is not based on material and that, on the facts narrated in the grounds of detention, no habituality is made out. On that ground alone, the order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 02.10.2010, is set aside. The detenu Prem @ Premkumar, son of Anthony @ Anthony Pitchai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her continued custody is required in connection with any other case.