Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1534 (MAD)

D. Praveen v. State of Tamilnadu

2014-06-18

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 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.522/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 25.07.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-2, Ambathur Estate Police Station Crime No.1239/2005 279, 379 IPC 2. T-13, Kundrathur Police Station Crime No.523/2007 341, 326 IPC 3. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1508/2011 379 IPC 4. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1568/2011 379 IPC 5. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1685/2011 379 IPC 6. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1822/2011 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 7. J-6, Thiruvanmiyur Police Station Crime No.1828/2011 379 IPC 8. T-2, Ambattur Estate Police Station Crime No.651/2013 341, 294(b), 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 28.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-2, Ambathur Estate Police Station in Crime No.820/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the material information as regards the place of the Court where the bail petition was filed by the detenu is wrongly stated as Ambattur in the detention order, whereas, the fact remains that the bail petition was filed before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. He would contend that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation to the authorities concerned 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. On a careful scrutiny of the booklet and on a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority in paragraph 4 of the detention order has stated that the detenu has filed a bail petition in Crime No.820/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur in Crl.M.P.No.1711/2013 and the same is pending. While so, page 87 of the booklet would show that a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1711/2013 was filed by the detenu in the said Crime number before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. 6. While so, page 87 of the booklet would show that a bail petition in Crl.M.P.No.1711/2013 was filed by the detenu in the said Crime number before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur. 6. For better appreciation, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “4. ... I am also aware that Thiru.Praveen, who was remanded in T-2, Ambattur Estate P.S. Cr.No.820/2013 has filed a bail petition in T-2, Ambathur Estate P.S. Cr.No.820/2013 before the Judicial Magistrate, Ambathur, in Crl.M.P.No.1711/2013 and the same is pending. ...” 7. On comparison of the material information stated in paragraph 4 of the detention order with that of the bail petition filed by the detenu annexed at page 87 of the booklet, the error as to the name and place of the Court is glaring. Thus, it is clear that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while relying on the material information. 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. 8. For the aforesaid reason, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Praveen made in BDFGISSV No.522/2013 dated 25.07.2013, 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.