Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1379 (MAD)

Rukumani v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 second respondent passed in No. 802/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 26.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1149 of 2012 120(b), 147, 148, 294(b), 448, 449, 450, 336, 427, 506(ii) and 302 r/w 149 IPC 2. R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1290 of 2013 399 IPC. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1673 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 427, 392 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No. 1290 of 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority 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. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder:- ''4. I am aware that Thiru. Kutti @ Dillibabu is in remand in R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Crime Nos. 1290 of 2013 and 1673 of 2013 and he has moved bail application for R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1673 of 2013 before the Court of 17th Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No. 3407 of 2013 and bail was granted on 22.08.2013. He has not moved any bail application for R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Cr. No. 1290 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru. Kutti @ Dillibabu's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Cr. No. 1290 of 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court.” 6. No. 1290 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority stated that Thiru. Kutti @ Dillibabu's relatives are taking action to take him out on bail in R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station in Cr. No. 1290 of 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court.” 6. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to bail out the detenu in Crime No. 1290 of 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. It is true that the detaining authority is empowered to take a decision if there is material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. But, on verification of the material documents, it is seen that no cogent material is available to support the decision of the detaining authority. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Kutti @ Dillibabu made in No. 802/BDFGISSV of 2013 dated 26.08.2013 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, 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.