Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1535 (MAD)

Vijayakumar v. Secretary to Government, Chennai

2014-06-18

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister 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.1572/2013 dated 10.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station, Crime No.1200 of 2013 379 IPC 2. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.1431 of 2013 392 IPC 3. V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.2109 of 2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.10.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No.2132 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 336, 392 r/w 397 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 only stated that there is possibility of the detenu filing bail application in the three adverse cases and he 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 aware that Thiru.Nandakumar @ Nanda is in remand in V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime Nos.2109/2013 and 2132/2013 and he has moved a bail application for V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.2132/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.14371/2013 and the same is poending. He has not moved any bail application for V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.2109/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr.Nandakumar @ Kumar are taking action to take him on bail in V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Cr.No.2109/2013 cases by filing bail application before the appropriate court......” From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the detenu has not moved a bail petition for V5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.2109 of 2013 (third adverse 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 third adverse 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 Nos.160 and 161 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. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nandakumar @ Nanda, made in BDFGISSV No.1572/2013 dated 10.11.2013 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.