Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 623 (MAD)

Poongodi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-11

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the sister of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.917/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 06.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:- The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 12.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station in Crime No.1343 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 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 though the detaining authority relied on the bail order granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in a similar case on 30.10.2012 to one Sekar @ Lotta Sekar in Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2012, which is annexed at Page Nos.82 to 824 of the booklet, a copy of bail petition pertaining to the said order has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making effective 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. From a perusal of the detention order at paragraph no.4, it is seen that the detaining authority stated that in a similar case registered at T-1, Ambattur Police Station in Crime No.1960 of 2012 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru Sekar @ Lotta Sekar by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2012 on 30.10.2012 and therefore, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the pending bail application moved in respect of Crime No.1343 of 2013, ground case. In such situation, it is the duty of the detaining authority to provide bail order along a copy of bail petition. But close reading of the booklet, especially Page Nos.82 to 84 reveals that a copy of bail order has only been furnished to the detenu without providing a copy of bail petition, which would definitely deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. But close reading of the booklet, especially Page Nos.82 to 84 reveals that a copy of bail order has only been furnished to the detenu without providing a copy of bail petition, which 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 hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Sakthivel, S/o. Mohan, made in Memo No.917/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 06.09.2013 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.