Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1416 (MAD)

Sumathi v. Principal Secretary to Government

2014-06-16

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife 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 2nd respondent passed in Cr.M.P.No.07/2013, dated 06.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Ariyalur: Meensurutty Police Station, Crime No.12/2010 392 and 506(ii) IPC 2. Ariyalur: Meensurutty Police Station, Crime No.467/2012 392 and 506(ii) IPC 3. Ariyalur: Meensurutty Police Station, Crime No.469/2012 294(b), 323, 324, 307 IPC r/w 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 4. Ariyalur: Meensurutty Police Station, Crime No.357/2013 395 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T.Palur incharge Meensurutty Police Station in Crime No.388/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 353, 307 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 likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime Nos.357 and 388/2013, 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 : ''5. I am aware that Thiru.Rajasekar is in remand in Meensurutty P.S. Cr.Nos.357/2013 and 388/2013 and has not filed bail application for the above cases. In a similar case registered in Palakkarai P.S. Cr.No.1197/2010, u/s 395 IPC, bail was granted to the accused Naina Mohammed, by the Principal Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.634/2011, dated 12.04.2011 and in Tiruchy Cantonment P.S. Cr.No.1924/2010, u/s. 353 and 307 IPC, bail was granted to the accused Chandru alias Chandramohan by the District Sessions Court, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.1939/2010, dated 31.08.2010 and hence there is real possibility of his (Rajasekar) coming out on bail for the above two cases. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ...” 6. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. ...” 6. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority placing reliance on similar cases, wherein bail was granted to the detenu therein, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu Rajasekar coming out on bail in the 4th adverse case in Crime No.357/2013 and ground case in Crime No.388/2013. 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 Rajasekar made in Cr.M.P.No.07/2013, dated 06.11.2013 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.