Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2637 (MAD)

Pichandi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2013-07-24

C.T.SELVAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
ORDER (Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.68 of 2012, dated 30.10.2012. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law No. 1 Gudiyatham Town Police Station, Sections 457, 380 IPC Crime No.280 of 2011 2 Gudiyatham Town Police Station, Sections 457, 380 IPC Crime No.572 2011 3 Gudiyatham Town Police Station, Section 380 IPC Crime No.586 2011 4 Gudiyatham Town Police Station, Section 379 IPC Crime No.675 2011 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.09.2012 by the Inspector of Police, Gudiyatham Town Police Station in Crime No.890 of 2012 for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 392, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds, he mainly focussed his submissions to assail the order of detention, that the detaining authority has observed in the detention order as to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail in Crime No.890 of 2012 registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 392, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C., i.e. the ground case, when the fact remains that he has not filed any bail application. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on the above submission. 5. The father of the detenu has called in question the impugned order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent, who, in paragraph 5 of the said order, has stated as follows : "I am aware that Thiru.Sekar was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Gudiyatham on 08.09.2012 in Gudiyatham Town Police Station ground case Cr.No.890/2012 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 341, 392, 427, 506(ii) and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Vellore as remand prisoner till 21.09.2012. Periodically, his remand period was further extended till 02.11.2012. I am aware that Thiru.Sekar has not filed any bail application in the court so far. But there is a real possibility of his (Thiru.Sekar) coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the appropriate court. Periodically, his remand period was further extended till 02.11.2012. I am aware that Thiru.Sekar has not filed any bail application in the court so far. But there is a real possibility of his (Thiru.Sekar) coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the appropriate court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law will not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the aid Thiru.Sekar is a "Goonda" and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." 6. A scrutiny of the above order would reveal that the detenu has not filed any bail application so far, as the remand was periodically extended till 02.11.2012. While so, in the absence of any material information about the possibility of filing bail application by the detenu before the appropriate court, the conclusion arrived at by the detaining authority to detain the detenu as to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is with total non-application of mind and without subjective satisfaction. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sekar, S/o.Pichandi, made in C3.D.O.No.68 of 2012, dated 30.10.2012, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular proceedings.