Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 575 (MAD)

Mohanraj v. Secretary To The Government

2014-03-03

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. Petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 28.08.2013 made in Memo No.838/BDFGISSV/2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a ‘Goonda' and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 28.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 K-5 Peravallore Police Station–Cr.No.2258 of 2012 341, 323 and 506(ii) IPC 2 K-5 Peravallore Police Station –Cr.No.513 of 2013 Section 4 of TNPWH Act & 307 IPC @ 450 and 302 IPC 3 K-5 Peravallore Police Station–Cr.No.1243 of 2013 341, 392 and 506(ii) IPC 4 K-5 Peravallore Police Station–Cr.No.1247 of 2013 341, 385 and 506(ii) IPC 5 K-5 Peravallore Police Station–Cr.No.1257 of 2013 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC 6 K-1 Sembium Police Station–Cr.No.1435 of 2013 392 IPC 3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 12.08.2013 at about 12.15 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, K-5 Peravallore Police Station, in Crime No.1664 of 2013, for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai – 8, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. The detaining authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition. 4. Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the issue i.e., there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority that bail granted in Crime No.1025 of 2011 to a similarly placed person has been taken into account for detaining the detenu and that the relevancy in relying on such bail order has not been properly explained and therefore the impugned order is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard Mr. P. Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, it is seen that the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that the detenu, who is in remand in Crime No.1664 of 2013, has moved a bail application before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.10172 of 2013 and it was dismissed on 20.08.2013. Thereafter, he has filed a bail application in respect of Crime No.1664 of 2013 before the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.10702 of 2013 and the same is pending. Though the detaining authority has relied on the bail order granted in Crime No.1025 of 2011, the name of the person to whom bail was granted and the section of offences for which bail was granted are not reflected in the order of detention and the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail based on the release of similarly placed person has also not been clearly placed on record by the detaining authority to arrive at a subjective satisfaction and therefore the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Dinakaran @ Deena, made in Memo No.838/BDFGISSV/2013, 28.08.2013, 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.