Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2768 (MAD)

Latha v. State of Tamilnadu

2013-07-31

C.T.SELVAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2013
ORDER (The order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J.,) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in C.O.C.No.16/2013 dated 07.03.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in Crime No.240/2012 on the file of Nagapattinam Town Police Station for the offences under Sections 302 IPC @ 120(b), 147, 148, 149, 341 and 302 IPC. 3. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 23.02.2013, by the Special Sub-Inspector of Police, Nagapattinam Town Police Station, in Crime No.82 of 2013 for offences under Sections 397 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed. 4. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the bail petition moved by the detenu in the ground case before learned Judicial Magistrate I, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.877 of 2013, was dismissed on 27.02.2013 and thereafter, he moved another bail petition before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Crl.M.P.No.508 of 2013, which was also dismissed on 06.03.2013. However, without taking into consideration the above fact, the detaining authority, by inferring himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as in a similar case bail was granted to another accused, has passed the impugned order on 07.03.2013, i.e., on the very next day of dismissal of the bail petition. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is erroneous. 5. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed to allow this petition by stating that the detenu has committed a serious offence and it is not desirable to release the detenu, as his free movement in the society will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 6. In the instant case, though it is stated that bail was granted in a similar case, we find that the bail petition of the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed on 06.03.2013 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on the very next day i.e.,07.03.2013. 6. In the instant case, though it is stated that bail was granted in a similar case, we find that the bail petition of the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed on 06.03.2013 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned order on the very next day i.e.,07.03.2013. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is baseless and without any supporting material, which shows the total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sekar @ Kora Sekar, S/o. Govindaraj, made in C.O.C.No.16/2013 dated 07.03.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, we make it clear that it is for the respondents to take note of the gravity of the offence and they shall prosecute the case before the trial Court without being influenced by this order. Likewise, the detenu shall not take any advantage of this order in any of the regular proceedings.