IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:- 07.04.2010
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
HCP. No.2315 of 2009
Arunachalam ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by its Secretary,,
Department of Home, Prohibition
and Excise,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirapalli City,
Trichirapalli District. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in CPO/TC/IS/DO 65/2009 dated 4.12.2009 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Nattu @ Natarajan, Son of Muthu, aged about 27 years residing at No.75/63, Nethaji Street, Ramachandra Nagar E. Pudur, Tiruchirapalli City now confined at Central Prison, Trichy and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. R. Sankarasubbu
For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
Challenge is made to an order dated 4.12.2009 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner’s friend Nattu @ Natarajan terming him as “Goonda” as defined under the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that the the detention order came to be made on the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in two adverse cases viz. (i) E. Pudur police station Crime No.97 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 397, 427, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the occurrence that had taken place on 13.2.2009 (ii) K.K. Nagar police station Crime No.489 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 387, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the occurrence that had taken place on 17.11.2009 and also a ground case in Crime No.778 of 2009 registered by E. Pudur police station for the offences under Sections 392, read with 397, 506(ii) of th Indian Penal code for the occurrence that had taken place on 18.11.2009, in which case the detenu was arrested on the very day and produced before the Court for judicial remand. The Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of entire materials, after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu was shown to have been involved in two adverse cases and one ground case. In one adverse case, no bail application was filed. Insofar as ground case is concerned, bail application has been filed before the Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same is pending. But the authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which is without any material whatsoever.
5. Learned counsel would further add that though the property was recovered from the detenu on 18.11.2009, the same was actually sent to the Court on 23.11.2009. There was a delay in sending the property. Insofar as arrest of second adverse case in Crime No.489 of 2009 is concerned, arrest card was not given to the detenu. All these circumstances would be suffice to set aside the order.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. It is not in controversy that on the recommendation made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in two adverse cases and also a ground case, the detaining Authority has passed the order under challenge. It is not in controversy that a bail application was actually filed in the ground case and the same is also pending, but no bail application was filed or pending insofar as adverse case in Crime No.489 of 2009 is concerned. But, the Detaining Authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. When no bail application was filed in the adverse case in Crime No.489 of 2009 and when the bail application filed in ground case is pending, the observation of the Authority would not have any basis or material much less cogent material. Under the circumstances, the expression in the mind of the Authority is without any material whatsoever. Equally, the arrest card in respect of adverse case in Crime No.489 of 2009 was not supplied to the detenu. Nowhere it is found in the entire booklet that a copy has been served upon the detenu. No material is placed before the Authority that arrest intimation was given in Crime No.489 of 2009 within a reasonable time, which is the non-compliance as required under law. These grounds would vitiate the detention order. Insofar as the other ground of delay in sending the property is concerned, there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Barring this ground, the other grounds are available to the Court to set aside the detention order.
8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in CPO/TC/IS/DO 65/2009 dated 4.12.2009. The detenu Nattu @ Natarajan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Trichy is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
ssa.
To
1. The Secretary,,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Department of Home, Prohibition
and Excise,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Trichirapalli City,
Trichirapalli District