Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 613 (MAD)

V. Suganya v. Secretary to Government

2014-03-10

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.853/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.700 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC 2. R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1222 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC 3. R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station, Crime No.1430 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-7, K.K.Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1488 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 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 focussed his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. He has contended that the Crime No.1222 of 2013 in respect of 2nd adverse case has been wrongly shown as Crime No.1228 of 2013 in the detention order. 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 point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order. 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 and health, has passed the impugned detention order. It is pertinent to note here that the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.10563 of 2013 in respect of Crime No.1488 of 2013, ground case was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on 26.08.2013. It is pertinent to note here that the bail application filed in Crl.M.P.No.10563 of 2013 in respect of Crime No.1488 of 2013, ground case was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai on 26.08.2013. But, the detaining authority has taken a decision on 29.08.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime number without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. Apart from this, the detaining authority has also wrongly mentioned the Crime Number as 1228 of 2013 instead of 1222 of 2013 in paragraph no.4 of the detention order, which really shows non application of mind on the part of detaining authority. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Vinoth @ Vincent, S/o.Manoharan, made in Memo No.853/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.08.2013 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.