Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 769 (MAD)

V. Emi v. Commissioner of Police

2014-03-26

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
JUDGMENT V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The petitioner is the wife of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the first respondent passed in No.BDFGISSV No.898/2013, dated 04.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sl. No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. K-6 T.P. Chathiram Police Station Crime No.287/2010 Section 379 I.P.C. 2. R-2 Kodambakkam Police Station Crime No.363/2010 Section 379 I.P.C. 3. R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Crime No.1457/2013 Section 379 I.P.C. 4. R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station CrimeNo.1823/2013 Section 379 I.P.C. 3. The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 23.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-6, Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1999/2013 under Sections 341, 336, 294(b), 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner has filed this Habeas Corpus Petition. 4. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his arguments on the ground that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while relying upon the similar case. He pointed out that the detaining authority while relying upon the similar case, has wrongly mentioned the Criminal O.P. as Crl.O.P.No.15965/2011 instead of Crl.O.P.15963/2011. Therefore, the impugned order is vitiated in law. 5. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the materials available on record. 6. From a reading of the detention order in paragraph 4, it is seen that the detaining authority has relied on a similar case registered at M-8 Sathankadu Police Station in Crime No.272/2011 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C., for which bail was granted by this Court in Crl.O.P.No.15965/2011 and arrived at a satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the appropriate court and indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. But, verification of the booklet at page 179 would show the Criminal O.P. number, in which bail was granted to the detenu in the similar case registered in Crime No.272/2011, as Crl.O.P.No.15963/2011. Hence, it is clear that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while relying upon the similar case. Therefore, the similar case relied on by the detaining authority to clamp the order of detention against the detenu, cannot be allowed to stand and the detention order is liable to be set aside. 7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order made in BDFGISSV No.898/2013 dated 04.09.2013, is set aside. The detenu – Varagamurthy, S/o.Surendar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.