Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 872 (MAD)

Meena v. Secretary to the Government

2014-04-09

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The mother of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in BDFGISSV No.861/2013, dated 30.08.2013 on the file of the 2nd respondent, seeking to quash the same and for a direction to the respondents to set him at liberty from detention. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M.3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No.658/2013 379 IPC 2. M.3 Puzhal Police Station Crime No.686/2013 379 IPC 3. M.4 Redhills Police Station Crime No.1542/2013 341, 294(b), 397 and 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, M.4, Redhills Police Station in Crime No.1543/2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. 3. The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority while placing reliance on the remand order as to the date of remand and extension of remand. He would submit that the detenu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate-II, Ponneri and was remanded till 23.08.2013. Later, the remand was extended till 06.09.2013. But, the detaining authority has observed in his order that the detenu was initially remanded till 22.08.2013 and the remand period was extended till 05.09.2013. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not proper and in accordance with law. 4. We have heard Mr.M.Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. On a perusal of the booklet at pages 99 and 101, which pertain to the Remand Order and the Remand Extension Order, it is seen that the detenu was initially remanded upto 23.08.2013 and the remand period was later extended till 06.09.2013. While so, the detaining authority has observed in the detention order as : "Later, Thiru.Anandan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court-II, Ponneri on 09.08.2013 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as remand prisoner till 22.08.2013. The remand period was extended till 05.09.2013." Hence, it is clear that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while recording the material information in the detention order pertaining to the dates of remand of the detenu and the subjective satisfaction arrived by him cannot be taken as right in law. The remand period was extended till 05.09.2013." Hence, it is clear that there is complete non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while recording the material information in the detention order pertaining to the dates of remand of the detenu and the subjective satisfaction arrived by him cannot be taken as right in law. Therefore, on the grounds of non-application of mind and subjective satisfaction, the impugned detention order is unsustainable in law. 6. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.861/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 30.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely Anandan in this case is set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.