Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 959 (MAD)

J. Meenachi v. State of Tamil Nadu

2014-04-21

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.751/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.08.2013 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. Chengalpattu Taluk Police Station Crime No.529/2011 394 r/w 397 IPC 2. R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Crime No.1536/2012 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 385, 324, 506(ii) IPC @ 294(b), 385, 324 & 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC 3. H-6 Dr.R.K.Nagar Police Station Crime No.534/2013 341, 294(b), 353, 427, 506(ii) IPC The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 19.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 427, 336, 392, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. 3. Amidst several grounds, learned counsel for the petitioner raised a point that the relied on document in Crl.M.P.No.9128/2013 has not been furnished to the detenu to enable him make an effective representation, thereby depriving his right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India. Further, he also pointed out that there is a defect in the translation of the detention order in paragraph 4, as the information pertaining to the dismissal of the bail application in Crl.M.P.No.9128/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai is omitted in the Tamil version of the detention order. 4. We have heard Mr.M.Maharaja, 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, both in the English and Tamil version, is extracted hereunder: “4. .... Again, he has moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.9556/2013 and the same was dismissed on 06.08.2013. Again, he has moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.9128/2013 and the same was dismissed on 29.07.2013. Again, he has moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the High Court of Madras, in Crl.O.P.No.20686/2013 and the same is pending. ” (“TAMIL”) 6. Again, he has moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the High Court of Madras, in Crl.O.P.No.20686/2013 and the same is pending. ” (“TAMIL”) 6. From a reading of the above, it is seen that the bail order in Crl.M.P.No.9128/2013 relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu. Further, in paragraph 4 of the English version of the detention order, it is stated that the detenu again moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.9128/2013 and the same was dismissed on 29.07.2013. It is further stated: Again, he has moved a bail application for R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1732/2013 before the High Court of Madras, in Crl.O.P.No.20686/2013 and the same is pending. While reiterating the relevant portion of the detention order in Tamil that (“TAMIL”), it is seen that the fact, the detenu's bail application in Crime No.1732/2013 was dismissed before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, is omitted. There is only mentioning about the pendency of the Criminal Original Petition before this Court. Therefore, it is clear that the detaining authority has not furnished the document relied on by him to the detenu and the translated version of the detention order in Tamil is also defective, 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.751/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 21.08.2013 is hereby quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu, namely J.Dinesh @ Dinesh Kumar in this case is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.