Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1381 (MAD)

Ramesh @ Alla Ramesh v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the detenu herein. He has been branded as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the1st respondent passed in Memo No. 814/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 27.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1. D-5 Marina Police Station Crime No. 2174 of 2010 379 IPC 2. F-2 Egmore Police Station Crime No. 2167 of 2012 379 IPC 3. J-11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1430 of 2013 454, 380 IPC 4. J-9 Thuraipakkam Police Station Crime No. 1329 of 2013 457, 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 22.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, J-11, Kannaki Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1465 of 2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 336, 506 (ii), 451 and 392 IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the detaining authority failed to seek clarification from the sponsoring authority about the serving of arrest memo to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu in Crime No. 1329 of 2013 and there was no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4. Heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above submission. 5. A scrutiny of the Arrest Report annexed at page 77 of the booklet would show that the arrest of the detenu in the 4th adverse case in Crime No. 1329 of 2013 was not intimated to any of the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu. When a person is taken into custody pursuant to a detention order, the members of his/her household, preferably his/her parents, spouse or children must be informed in writing of the passing of the detention order against the detenu(e) as also the fact that the detenu(e) has been taken into custody, by duly intimating as to the place of detention including the place where the detenu(e) is transferred from time to time, which would ensure the right of the person arrested under preventive detention. If such intimation of arrest is not made effectively, then it would confer a right upon the person arrested to impugn the arrest effected on him/her. In the case on hand, since there is no proof to exhibit intimation of arrest to the family members of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. 6. In similar circumstances, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanmugam and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in (2013) 4 MLJ (Crl) 1, while issuing some suggestions and guidelines to the Government of Tamil Nadu, set aside the order of detention, by observing as under:- "19. Despite clear instructions given by the Government after touching upon the legal position, the officer, who arrested the detenus informed the said arrest to the wife and friend of detenus over cellphone, by simply stating that the date of arrest being Sunday, no telegraphic service was available, which is a matter of ignorance on the part of arresting authorities, as in our country, telegraphic services are available even on Sundays. The mode of communication adopted by the authorities, which was not even looked into by the detaining authorities is not only unknown to the settled principles, but also is an attempt to cast aside the instructions given by the Government." 7. In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the 1st respondent vide Memo No. 814/BDFGISSV of 2013 detaining the detenu, namely Ramesh @ Allah Ramesh 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.