Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1221 (MAD)

Ramani v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-09

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the brother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 1220/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 03.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. G-1 Vepery Police Station Crime No. 371 of 2013 302 IPC @ 147, 148, 302, 506 (ii) r/w 149 IPC 2. G-1 Vepery Police Station Crime No. 811 of 2013 341, 294(b), 323, 384 and 506 (ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G1 Vepery Police Station in Crime No. 814 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the impugned order of detention, he would mainly contend that the detaining authority in the detention order has stated that the detenu Sarathi has moved a bail application in Crime No. 811 of 2013, the second adverse case, before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in Crl. M.P. No. 10383 of 2013 but, it is seen that the co-accused namely, Veera has also filed a bail application in Crime No. 811 of 2013 vide the same Crl. M.P. No. 10383 of 2013. It is his contention that two accused cannot file individual bail applications in the same Crl. M.P. and hence, would contend that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in relying on the said bail order while arriving at the subjective satisfaction. Therefore, it would vitiate the rights guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. 4. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. On a careful reading of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu Sarathi has moved a bail application for G.1 Vepery Police Station in Crime No. 811 of 2013 before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in M.P. No. 10383 of 2013 and that the same is pending. On verification of the booklet and connected materials, it is seen that not only the detenu Sarathi has filed a bail application in Crl. M.P. No. 10383 of 2013 in Crime No. 811 of 2013, so also the co-accused Veera has filed a bail application in the said Crime Number vide the same Criminal Miscellaneous Petition. For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted thus:- "4. I am aware that Thiru Sarathi is in remand in G.1 Vepery Police Station Cr. Nos. 811 of 2013 and Cr. No. 814 of 2013 and he has moved a bail application for G.1 Vepery Police Sttation in Crime No. 811 of 2013 before the 14th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in M.P. No. 10383 of 2013 and the same is pending." 6. In the case on hand, both the detenu herein, namely, Sarathi and the co-accused namely, Veera have filed individual bail petitions in Crime No. 811 of 2013 vide the same M.P. Number in Crl. M.P. No. 10383 of 2013, which is not justifiable. Even the two accused may together file a single bail application in the same Crime number. But, two accused filing individual bail applications vide the same Petition number is not permissible, which fact has not been noticed by the detaining authority while passing the detention order, thereby showing his non-application of mind and the consequence thereof is in infringement of the right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in BDFGISSSV No. 1220 of 2013 dated 03.10.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely SARATHI in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.