Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1793 (MAD)

Manimegalai v. Secretary to Government

2014-06-30

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" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.1727/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 26.11.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. T-14, Mangadu Police Station Crime No.295/2013 380 IPC 2. T-14, Mangadu Police Station Crime No. 601/2013 379 IPC 3. T-14, Mangadu Police Station Crime No.647/2013 454, 380 IPC 4. T-14, Mangadu Police Station Crime No.2097/2013 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.11.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-14, Mangadu Police Station in Crime No.2113/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397, 506(ii) IPC. 3. Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.2113/2013, by filing bail application before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority 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. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: ''4. ... I am also aware that Thiru.Selvaraj @ Raj, who was remanded in T-14, Mangadu Police Station Cr.Nos.295/2013, 601/2013, 647/2013, 2097/2013 and 2113/2013 has filed a bail petition for T-14 Mangadu Police Station Cr. Nos. 295/2013, 601/2013, 647/2013 and 2097/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbudur, Crl.M.P. Nos. 5427/2013, 5428/2013, 5430/2013 and 5429/2013, respectively and the same were dismissed on 18.11.2013. He has filed another bail petitions for T-14, Mangadu Police Station Cr.Nos.295/2013, 601/2013, 647/2013 and 2097/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Sriperumbuthur in Crl.M.P.Nos.5468/2013, 5470/2013, 5469/2013 and 5467/2013 respectively and the same were pending. He has not moved any bail application for T-14 Mangadu Police Station in Crime No.2113/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Selvaraj @ Raj is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T-14 Mangadu Police Station in Crime No.2113/2013 before the appropriate court. He has not moved any bail application for T-14 Mangadu Police Station in Crime No.2113/2013 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Selvaraj @ Raj is taking action to take him out on bail by filing bail application for T-14 Mangadu Police Station in Crime No.2113/2013 before the appropriate court. ...” 6. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to bail out the detenu in Crime No.2113/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. It is true that the detaining authority is empowered to take a decision if there is material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. But, on verification of the material documents, it is seen that no cogent material is available to support the decision of the detaining authority. 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. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Selvaraj @ Raj made in No.1727/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 26.11.2013 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.