Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1539 (MAD)

Shanthi v. State of Tamilnadu

2014-06-18

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the mother 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 Memo No.1019/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Kelambakkam Police Station Crime No.04/2011 147, 148, 363, 341, 323, 302 and 201 IPC r/w 149 IPC 2. J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1699/2013 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1716/2013 for offences under Sections 294(b), 427, 506(ii), 392 IPC. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that though in the detention order, it is stated that the detenu was already arrested in J.11 Kannagi Nagar Police Station in Crime Nos.1699/2013 and 1746/2013 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as remand prisoner, in paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has inferred that the detenu is in remand in Crime Nos.1699/2013 and 1716/2013, by which, the Crime Number in the ground case is wrongly mentioned in the detention order as Cr.No.1746/2013 instead of Cr.No.1716/2013. Therefore, he would plead that the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed on this sole ground. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the grounds of detention is extracted hereunder : ''4. ... I am aware that Thiru.Koyya @ Anandan is in remand in J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station Crime Nos.1699/2013 and 1716/2013 and he has moved a bail application for J-11, Kannagi Nagar Police Station Crime Nos.1699/2013 & 1716/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Alandur, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.Nos.8705/2013 & 8706/2013 and the same are pending. ...” 6. On comparison of the detention order with the grounds of detention, it is seen that the Crime Number in the ground case is wrongly mentioned in the detention order as Crime No.1746/2013, which actually is Crime No.1716/2013 as could be seen from the grounds of detention. ...” 6. On comparison of the detention order with the grounds of detention, it is seen that the Crime Number in the ground case is wrongly mentioned in the detention order as Crime No.1746/2013, which actually is Crime No.1716/2013 as could be seen from the grounds of detention. Thus, when there is material discrepancy, the opportunity of making effective representation upon knowledge of the factual situation stands denied to the detenu and the same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, would vitiate the order of detention. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Koyya @ Anandan made in No.1019/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013 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. 8. However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.