Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1400 (MAD)

A. Shajakhan v. Commissioner of Police

2014-06-16

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 the first respondent passed in No.962/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 11.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 01.04.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Anti Land Grabbing Special Cell-II, Central Crime Branch-II, Egmore, Chennai in Crime No.69/2013 for offences under Sections 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 506(i) and 120 IPC. Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Central Crime Branch Police Station Crime No.33/2013 420, 465, 467, 468, 506(i) r/w 34 IPC 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the ground that the bail petition moved by the detenu in the ground case in Crime No.69/2013 before the Thiruvallur Land Grabbing Special Court in M.P.No.34/2013, was dismissed on 10.09.2013. However, without taking into consideration the above fact, the detaining authority, by inferring himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as in a similar case bail was granted to another accused, has passed the impugned order on 11.09.2013, i.e., on the very next day of dismissal of the bail petition. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is erroneous. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. In the instant case, though it is stated that bail was granted in a similar case, we find that the bail petition of the detenu in respect of the ground case was dismissed on 10.09.2013 and the detaining authority has passed the impugned detention order on the very next day i.e., on 11.09.2013. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is baseless and without any supporting material, which shows total non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Shajakhan S/o. Abdul Rasaq made in Memo No.962/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.09.2013,is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. For the aforesaid reasons, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Shajakhan S/o. Abdul Rasaq made in Memo No.962/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 11.09.2013,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.