BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 14/08/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.KARNAN H.C.P.(MD) No.77 of 2009 Pandi alias Sullan Pandi .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector & and District Magistrate, Theni District, Theni. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records of the second respondent pertaining to the detention order No.15/2008 dated 24.12.2008 in detaining the detenu under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a "Goonda" and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the said detenu namely Pandi @ Sullan Pandian aged about 30 years Son of Chinnasamy @ Chinnan who is detained at the Central Prison, Madurai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.S.Jeyasingh ^For respondents ... Mr.N.Senthur Pandian Addl.Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by P.MURGESEN, J)
The petitioner is the detenu. He was detained by the second respondent
District Collector by his order No.15/2008 dated 24.12.2008, under Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda”.
2.The petitioner has challenged the order of detention on the grounds that
the detaining authority has predetermined the detention order and there is no
subjective satisfaction about the detenu coming out on bail.
3.Let us consider the two grounds. So far as the first ground is
concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that in page No.141 of
the booklet filed by the respondents the copy of remand extension report was
sought for with a view to detain the petitioner under the Goonda Act, because
the concerned police official has averred in that application that the accused
will be detained under the Goonda Act and hence, the detaining authority has
predetermined the detention order. the concerned Sub-Inspector of Police is not
the detaining authority. So, the claim of the petitioner that already the
detaining authority has predetermined the detention order is not helpful to the
petitioner.
4.So far as the second submission is concerned, there are four adverse
cases and one ground case. The ground case was registered in Crime Number 920
of 2008 under Section 392 I.P.C. by the Allinagaram Police Station. He was
arrested on 08.12.2008. On 24.12.2008, the detaining authority was of the view
that the petitioner has not moved for any bail and he has averred that there is
a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, since in similar cases
bails were granted by the concerned Courts after lapse of time. Absolutely
there is no material to hold that the petitioner had intention to move for bail
on the said date. The claim of possibility of the detenu coming out on bail has
to be shown by some materials on record. On careful consideration of the
materials on record, we are of the considered view that there is no material to
come to the conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out
on bail. So, testing the case in the light of the decision of the Honourable
Supreme Court, we are of the view that the detaining authority has failed to
satisfy itself about the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
5.On this ground alone, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention
dated 24.12.2008, passed by the second respondent in Detention Order No.15/2008
is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence
is required in connection with any other case.
sj
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector &
and District Magistrate,
Theni District,
Theni.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.