Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 918 (MAD)

M. Saradha v. Secretary to the Government

2014-04-15

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J. 1. The mother of the detenu is before this Court challenging the proceedings in Memo No.975/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 12.09.2013 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 detenue came to adverse notice in the following cases: S.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.413/2010 380 IPC 2. V-6 Kolathur Police Station Crime No.422/2012 457, 380 & 511 IPC 3. V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1260/2012 457, 380 & 511 IPC 4. V-6 Kolathur Police Station Crime No.760/2012 457, 380 IPC 5. V-4 Rajamangalam Police Station Crime No.1071/2013 341, 336, 294(b), 392, 397, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenue is one registered on 12.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station in Crime No.1168/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 380, 392, 294(b), 397 and 506 (ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a point that no material information, particularly the first order of remand and the last remand extension order, relied on by the detaining authority is furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation. 4. We have heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: “3. .... Further, the arrest intimation of the accused Thiru.George Bush was given to his mother Tmt.Saratha on the same day. Later, the Inspector of Police produced accused Thiru.George Bush before the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-53, on 12.08.2013, who ordered the accused to be remanded till 26.08.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, as remand prisoner. Further, his remand period was extended upto 20.09.2013, periodically. The investigation of the case is not yet over. ... '' 6. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the Inspector of Police produced the accused on 12.08.2013 and ordered the accused to be remanded till 26.08.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. Further, his remand period was extended upto 20.09.2013 periodically. On verification of the booklet at page 93, the remand extension order dated 26.08.2013 shows that the accused was seen on 26.08.2013 through video conference and remand was extended till 06.09.2013. Further, his remand period was extended upto 20.09.2013 periodically. On verification of the booklet at page 93, the remand extension order dated 26.08.2013 shows that the accused was seen on 26.08.2013 through video conference and remand was extended till 06.09.2013. Such being the position, the detaining authority has relied on the remand order dated 12.08.2013 and stated that the remand is extended till 20.09.2013, which on re-verification is not found in the booklet. Therefore, it is clear that the detaining authority has not furnished the documents relied on by him to the detenu, thereby depriving the detenu's right to make an effective representation. Hence, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.975/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 12.09.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely George Bushin this case is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.