Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 671 (MAD)

K. Kantha Rao v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-17

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 2nd respondent passed in No.947/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Crime No.1197 of 2011 Section 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 2. K-5, Peravallur Police Station, Crime No.1188 of 2011 Section 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. T-3, Korattur Police Station, Crime No.1424 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, T-3, Korattur Police Station in Crime No.1439 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 506(ii), 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 though the detaining authority relied on the bail order granted by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee in a similar case to an accused therein in Crl.M.P.No.8172 of 2012 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.1424 of 2013, 3rd adverse case, but the said material relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention, 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. A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in a similar case registered at T6, Avadi Police Station in Crime No.1677 of 2012 for offence under Section 379 IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.II, Poonamallee in Crl.M.P.No.8172 of 2012, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail application in respect of Crime No.1424 of 2013, 3rd adverse case. In such situation, it is the duty of the detaining authority to provide a copy of both bail order and bail petition pertaining to the similar case to the detenu. But a perusal of the entire booklet reveals that there is no material annexed in it with respect to the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority, which in our considered opinion, would definitely deprive the detenu 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 reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Naveen, S/o.Kantharao, made in No.947/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 10.09.2013 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.