Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 626 (MAD)

Kalaiarasi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-11

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 C.M.P.No.37/Goonda/Salem City/2013 dated 14.07.2013 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. Ammapet Police Station, Crime No. 458 of 2012 Sections 457 & 380 IPC 2. Ammapet Police Station, Crime No. 351 of 2013 Sections 457 & 380 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 25.04.2013 by the Special Sub Inspector of Police, Ammapet Police Station in Crime No.133 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 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 the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. Thus, on this sole ground, 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. 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. The reason for coming to such conclusion is that in a similar case registered in Crime No.246 of 2012 for offences under Sections 341, 392 r/w 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of Salem Town Crime Police Station, bail was granted by this Court vide order dated 19.11.2012 in Crl.O.P.25955 of 2012 to one Duraiswamy, who was remanded on 24.09.2012 and in one more similar case also, bail stood granted by the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Salem on 29.10.2011 on the file of Salem Town Crime Police Station in Crime No.391 of 2011 under Section 379 IPC to one Thiru Sankar @ Manikandan, who was remanded on 20.09.2011. By inferring that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the detaining authority has taken a decision on 14.07.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner. 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, S.Arunkumar, S/o. Shanmugasundaram, made in C.M.P.No.37/Goonda/Salem City/2013 dated 14.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Borstal School, Pudukkottai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.