Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1384 (MAD)

S. Kannan v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-06-14

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a Goonda as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No. 1076 of 2013 dated 21.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, Crime No. 1922 of 2011 147, 148, 341, 324, 307, 506(ii) IPC 2. P-5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 386 of 2013 147, 148, 341, 324, 120(b), 307 IPC r/w 3 of PPDL Act, 1992 The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 1254 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the special report, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything about the steps taken by the relatives to take the detenu on bail. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same being prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No. 4 of the order:- "4. I am also aware that Thiru. Manikandan @ Bell Mani who was remanded in P-5 MKB Nagar P.S. Cr. No. 1254 of 2013 so far. I am also aware that Thiru. Manikandan @ Bell Mani who was remanded in P-5 MKB Nagar P.S. Cr. No. 1254 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Manikandan @ Bell Mani is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for P-5 MKB Nagar P.S. Cr. No. 1254 of 2013 before the appropriate court." 6. From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the detenu has not moved a bail petition for P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 1254 of 2013 (ground case). When that being so, the detaining authority, based on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail in the ground case, has arrived at the satisfaction that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case by filing bail application and clamped the detention order. But, in the special report found at Page No.115 of the booklet, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything in this regard. Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority, without considering the same, has passed the impugned detention order without any supporting material and the same is, therefore, vitiated. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Manikandan @ Bell Mani, made in BDFGISSV No. 1076 of 2013 dated 21.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.