Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1703 (MAD)

Ranjith v. Commissioner of Police, Chennai

2014-06-25

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the friend 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 first respondent passed in Memo No. 1667/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 20.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:– S. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-1 Ambathur Police Station, Crime No. 1286 of 2013 302 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 18.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-1 Ambathur Police Station, in Crime No. 1768 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds, his main submission is that the detaining authority has expressed subjective satisfaction over the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail based on the bail granted in a similar case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station in Crime No. 1960 of 2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl. M.P. No. 2392 of 2012 and copy of the said bail order was not furnished to the detenu in the booklet and there is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention and hence it is vitiated. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 5. For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below:- "4. I am aware that Thiru Pargo @ Bargav @ Bujji is in remand in T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime Nos. 1768 of 2013. He has not filed any bail applications for T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime No. 1768 of 2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Pargo @ Bargav @ Bujji are taking action to take him out on bail by filing another bail application for T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime No. 1768 of 2013 before the appropriate court. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Pargo @ Bargav @ Bujji are taking action to take him out on bail by filing another bail application for T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime No. 1768 of 2013 before the appropriate court. It is pertinent to note that in a case registered at T-1 Ambattur Police Station Crime No. 1960 of 2012 u/s. 341, 294 (b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur, in Crl. M.P. No. 2392 of 2012. Hence I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application before the appropriate court for Crime No. 1768 of 2013 since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time." 6. As seen from the extracted passage, the subjective satisfaction expressed by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the case in which he was on remand (ground case) is based on the bail order in Crl. M.P. No. 2392 of 2012 in a similar case in Crime No. 1960 of 2012 on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station. A copy of the said order is not found in the booklet supplied to the detenu. There is nothing to show that such material was placed before the detaining authority at the time of clamping the order of detention. Therefore, non-furnishing of the bail order in a similar case prevented the detenu from making effective representation and the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Thiru Pargo @ Bargav @ Bujji, S/o Prabhakaran, made in Memo No. 1667/BDFGISSV of 2013, dated 20.11.2013 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. 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.