Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1754 (MAD)

Guna v. Secretary to the Government

2014-06-27

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" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1748/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 28.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 D-6 Anna Square Police Station Crime No.428/2012 379 IPC 2 D.1 Triplicane Police Station Crime No.1198/2013 452, 324 & 506(ii) IPC 3 F.1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No.1175/2013 341 and 392 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 24.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, F.2 Egmore Police Station in Crime No.1441/2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed. 3. Though 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 when no bail application is filed by the detenu or by the relatives of the detenu in the 3rd adverse case in Crime No: 1175 of 2013, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. 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 submission. 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 is prejudicial to the public order, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein, in paragraph 4 it is stated thus: “4.... The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Appu @ Venkatesan are taking action to take him on bail in F.2 Egmore Police Station Cr. No> 1441/2013 F.1 Chindadripet PS Cr.No: 1175/2013 by filing bail application before the Court. In a similar case registered at D.1 Triplicane Police Station Cr. No. 442/2012 registered under Sections 392 IPC bail was granted by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No: 2997/2012. No> 1441/2013 F.1 Chindadripet PS Cr.No: 1175/2013 by filing bail application before the Court. In a similar case registered at D.1 Triplicane Police Station Cr. No. 442/2012 registered under Sections 392 IPC bail was granted by the 13th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. No: 2997/2012. In a case registered at F-2 Egmore Police Station Cr.No.643/2013 registered under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.6534/2013. Hence, I infer that there is possibility of his coming out on bail in F.2 Egmore Police Station Cr. No.1441/2013 and F.1 Chindripet Police Station Cr. No. 1175 / 2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, since in similar cases bails have been granted by courts after a lapse of time. '' 6. On a close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 28.11.2013 to detain the detenu based on the report of the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing a bail application in respect of Crime No. 1441 of 2013 and 1175 of 2013, the ground case and the third adverse case respectively. But, on a reading of the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority at Page No: 124 of the booklet, it is seen that the sponsoring authority has mentioned only in the ground case in Cr. No: 1441/2013, the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out. There is no mention about the 3rd adverse case in the Special Report. Thus, it is clear that without any valid material in support thereof, the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction and passed the impugned order of detention in a mechanical manner. Thus, for the reasons stated herein above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Appu @ Venkatesan made in Memo No.1748/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 28.11.2013 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.