IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 28/06/2005
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM
HCP.No.303 of 2005
John Fredrick Alexander ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate
and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam,
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records related to
petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order,
dated 24.01.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in
proceedings BDFGISV No.18 of 2005, quash the the same as illegal and
consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner
namely John Fredrick Alexander before this Hon'ble Court and set him at
liberty from detention.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner, who was detained as ‘Goonda’, as contemplated under
the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned
proceedings dated 24.01.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the
grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost
submitted that in the absence of imminent possibility or likelihood of the
detenu coming out on bail, the decision of the Detaining Authority, detaining
him under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, cannot be sustained.
3. In the light of the above submission, we have perused the grounds
of detention, particularly paragraph No.5 (i) & (ii). Though the Detaining
Authority was having necessary knowledge about the fact that the detenu was in
remand, after finding that his earlier bail applications were dismissed,
without necessary material, he has arrived at the conclusion that ” …..
There is a possibility of him filing another bail application and being
enlarged on bail. …” The said conclusion is not in consonance with the
dictum laid down in various decisions by the Supreme Court as well as this
Court, vide Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India (1991 (1) SCC 128 : 1991 SCC
(Cri) 88); Rivadeneyta Ricardo Augustin v. Government of Delhi (1994 SCC
(Cri) 354) & Order of this Court dated 27.06.2005 made in HCP No.284 of 2005.
On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.
JI.
To
1. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.
George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.