Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1358 (MAD)

M. Selvi v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1484/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.10.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 E4 Abiramapuram Police Station Crime No.1495 of 2013 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 06.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-4 Kotturpuram Police Station in Crime No.1499 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on a similar case wherein bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6534 of 2009 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of adverse and ground cases, but offences for which the accused in the said similar case were arrested and remanded to judicial custody were entirely different from the present adverse case and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in the similar case registered at F2 Egmore Police Station in Crime No.645 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6534 of 2013, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail applications in respect of ground cases. A perusal of the booklet at Page No.127, annexure of bail order, relied on by the detaining authority, which was granted in the similar case would go to show that petitioner/ accused therein was granted bail in respect of offences punishable under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC whereas in the present case, the detenu was involved in cases for commission of offences under Section 302 IPC (adverse case). A comparison of offences indicated in the similar case with that of present one makes it clear that both cases cannot be construed as similar in nature. Therefore, improper application of mind of detaining authority is apparent in treating the offences as similar to that of one relied on by them. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Murugan @ Nondi Murugan, Son of Kesavan made in Memo No.1484/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.10.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.