Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 683 (MAD)

Kandeeban v. Inspector of Police

2014-03-18

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. 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.595/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.08.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases :- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. J-10, Semmanchery Police Station, Crime No.2026 of 2011 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 2. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.325 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 3. E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Crime No.1565 of 2013 Section 379 IPC 4. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.901 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 5. E-1, Mylapore Police Station, Crime No.1115 of 2013 Sections 457 and 380 IPC 6. E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Crime No.2016 of 2013 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, E-3, Teynampet Police Station in Crime No.2022 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 397, 427 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 has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on two bail orders, viz., one granted by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in a similar case to an accused therein in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011 and second one granted by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in another similar case to an accused therein in Crl.M.P.No.11090 of 2011 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime Nos.2022 and 2016 of 2013, ground case and 6th adverse case, but the said material information 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. 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 similar cases registered at R-1, Mambalam Police Station in Crime No.1561 of 2011 for an offence under Section 379 IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011 and like wise in another similar case registered at R-4, Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station in Crime No. 1173 of 2011 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 392, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11090 of 2011, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail applications in respect of Crime Nos.2022 and 2016 of 2013, ground and 6th adverse cases. In such situation, it is the duty of the detaining authority to provide a copy of both bail order and bail petition pertaining to similar cases to the detenu. But a perusal of the entire booklet reveals that there is no material annexed in it with respect to similar cases 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 Kandeeban, S/o. Kasinathan, made in No.595/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 03.08.2013 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.