Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 593 (MAD)

T. Chithra v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-05

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
ORDER Mr. V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. The wife of the detenu is the petitioner and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 29.08.2013 made in BDFGISSV No. 844/2013, passed by the second 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 29.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law 1 P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 1820/2011 341, 324, 506(ii) I.P.C. 2 P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 2434/2012 294(b) and 323 I.P.C. 3 P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 760/2013 147, 148, 294(b), 341, 324, 307 & 506(ii) I.P.C. @ 302 I.P.C. 4 P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Cr. No. 765/2013 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 386, 427, 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. In para 3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 17.08.2013 at 10.30 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station, in Crime No. 1126 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323 , 427 , 336 , 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day and produced before the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 18.08.2013, and remanded to judicial custody. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon 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 by way of this habeas corpus petition. 4. Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that when the bail application moved by the detenu was dismissed on 20.08.2013 and when there is no material to support that steps are being taken by the relatives of the detenu to take him on bail, the satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is vitiated in law. 5. 5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission and perused the material documents produced before us. 6. 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: “5. I am aware that Thiru Balaji @ Tamilselvan is in remand in P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 1126/2013 and he has moved a bail application for P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 1126/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No. 10191/2013 and the same was dismissed on 20.08.2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Balaji @ Tamilselvan is taking action to take him out on bail by filing another bail application for P5 M.K.B. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 1126/2013 before the appropriate Court........” 7. From a reading of paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, it is clear that the detenu was in remand in Crime No. 1126 of 2013 and he has moved a bail application in Crl.M.P.No. 10191 of 2013 and the same was dismissed on 20.08.2013. However, the detaining authority has taken into account the statement of the sponsoring authority that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to take the detenu on bail by filing another bail application and that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. But the report filed by the sponsoring authority found at Page No. 217 of the booklet would reveal that the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed and there is no material information to show that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to move another bail application to take him on bail. In the absence of any material to support the stand that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is vitiated in law. On this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No. 844/2013 dated 29.08.2013, is set aside. On this sole ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No. 844/2013 dated 29.08.2013, is set aside. The detenu Balaji @ Tamilselvan, S/o. Muthu, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.