Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 953 (MAD)

Revathi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-21

G.CHOCKALINGAM, V.DHANAPALAN

body2014
Judgment : V. Dhanapalan, J., 1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No.1044/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.09.2013. 2. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:- Sr.No. Police Station and Crime No. Sections of Law 1. M-1, Madhavaram Police Station, Crime No.57 of 2012 Section 379 IPC 2. B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Crime No.225 of 2012 Section 379 r/w 34 IPC 3. B-2, Esplanade Police Station, Crime No.1055 of 2012 Section 379 IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 13.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, B-2, Esplanade Police Station in Crime No.2148 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 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 mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. 4. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order: “4.... In a similar case registered at B-2, Esplanade Police Station Cr.No.981/2013 u/s.341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted by the High Court, Chennai to the accused Velu @ Chinnavelu, in Crl.O.P.No.4371/2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.John @ Johnson are taking action to take him on bail by filing another bail application before the Court. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.John @ Johnson are taking action to take him on bail by filing another bail application before the Court. A close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 19.09.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing another application in respect of Crime No. 2148 of 2013, ground case, without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which shows clear non application of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion. 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 detenu, namely, John @ Johnson, S/o.Josaph, made in Memo No.1044/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 19.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.