Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 621 (MAD)

Babu v. State Rep. by The Commissioner of Police

2014-03-11

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the father of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 1st respondent passed in Memo No.835/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 28.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case :- Sr. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.438 of 2011 Sections 457, 380 IPC and 109 IPC r/w 34 IPC 2. Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.76 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 394 and 397 IPC 3. E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.205 of 2012 Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 506 (ii), 307, 394, 397 & 436 IPC 4. E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.294 of 2012 Sections 147, 148, 341, 324, 294(b), 436, 506(ii) & 307 IPC 5. E-1, Ponneri Police Station, Tiruvallur District. Crime No.133 of 2013 Sections 447, 353, 324, 506 (ii) and 394 IPC r/w 2 & 3 of TNPPD Act The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-8, Muthapudupet Police Station in Crime No.386 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 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 focussed his argument on the ground that Tamil version of bail order granted to one Nithya @ Nithiyanantham in a similar case on 26.03.2012 in Crime No.464 of 2012 of T-1, Ambattur Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur passed in Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2912 437, which is annexed at Page No.111 of the booklet has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making representation for his redressal 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. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. From a perusal of the booklet at Page No.111, it is seen that though the detaining authority relied on the bail order granted on 26.03.2012 to a similarly situated accused in Crime No.464 of 2012 of T-1, Ambattur Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur passed in Crl.M.P.No.712 of 2912 437, the said order, though placed in English version, has not been furnished to the detenu in the language known to him. Non furnishing of the same in the language known to the detenu would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu Viji @ Vijay, S/o. Babu, made in Memo No.835/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 28.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.