Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 700 (MAD)

Ravi @ Ramkumar v. Government of Tamil Nadu

2014-03-19

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT MR. V. DHANAPALAN, J. 1. The petitioner is the husband of detenue. The detenue has been branded as an “Immoral Traffic Offender” under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.M.P. No. 38/I.T.O/Salem City/2013 dated 16.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1 Hasthampatty Police Station Crime No.440 of 2012 Sections 3 ,4 ,5 ,7(1)(b) of ITP Act 2. Sooramangalam A.W.Police Station, Crime No.3 of 2012 Sections 3 ,4 and 5 of ITP Act The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 28.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Sooramangalam All Women Police Station in Crime No.10 of 2013 for offences under Sections 3 ,4 and 5 of ITP Act, 1956. 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 though detaining authority referred to a bail order in a similar case wherein the detenue was granted bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 3, Salem in C.M.P. No. 3435 of 2012 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime Nos. 3 of 2012 and 10 of 2013, 2nd adverse case and ground case respectively, but offences for which the detenue was tried in the said similar case were slightly different from the present one 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 the similar case registered at Hasthampatty Police Station in Crime No. 440 of 2012 for offences under Sections 3 ,4 ,5 ,7(1)(b) of ITP Act, 1956, bail was granted to the detenue itself by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.3, Salem in C.M.P. No. 3435 of 2012 on 30.05.2012, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail applications in respect of Crime Nos.3 of 2012 and 10 of 2013, 2nd adverse and ground cases. A perusal of the booklet at Page No.52, which is the of bail order granted to the detenue in the similar case, relied on by the detaining authority would go to show that out of Sections 3 ,4 ,5 ,7(1)(b) of ITP Act registered therein, except Section 5 of ITP Act, rest of the offences are bailable in nature. In the present petition, it is shown that the detenue was involved in cases for commission of offences under Sections 3,4 and 5 of ITP Act (2nd adverse case) and Sections 3 ,4 and 5 of ITP Act (ground case). A comparison of offences indicated in the similar case with that of present one makes it clear that though Section 7(1)(b), which offence is not booked against the detenue in the 2nd adverse case and ground case, is bailable in nature, it is hardly believable that both cases with respect to offences are similar in nature. Therefore, improper application of mind of detaining authority is apparent in treating the offences as similar to that of one relied on by them. 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 detenue Nandhini, W/o.Ravi @ Ramkumar, made in No. C.M.P. No. 38/I.T.O/Salem City/2013 dated 16.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenue, who is detained at the Special Prison for Women, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other case. Petition allowed.