IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.12.2007
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1350 of 2007
Oli @ Gnanasekaran ..Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by its Secretary to Govt.
Prohibition and Excise Dept.
Fort St. George
Chennai.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai. ..Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thanjan
For Respondents : Mr.P.Kumaresan, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The second respondent herein clamped an order of
detention as against the petitioner, as the said authority
arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu
is a Goonda and has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the
Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas,
Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and
Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the detenu
himself, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai, has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus
Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the
records pertaining to the detention order passed against him
by the second respondent in proceedings
No.333/BDFGISSV/2007, dated 16.7.2007, set aside the same
and to direct the respondents to produce him before this
Court and set him at liberty.
3.1. The order of detention dated 16.7.2007 was passed
based on the ground case registered in Crime No.483 of 2007
on the file of T-1 Ambattur Police Station for alleged
commission of offences under Sections 341, 323, 336, 392,
397, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, complaint of which was lodged by
one Kumaresan. According to the complainant, on 24.6.2007
at 12.00 noon, while he was walking along Ambattur CTH Road,
the detenu along with his associates wrongfully restrained
and threatened him by showing aruval and demanded to part
with his money and when the same was refused by the
complainant, they assaulted him and took away Rs.2500/- cash
and also two cell phones from his pocket. On hearing hue and
cry of the complainant, public came to his rescue, which
went in vain and the detenu and his associates made their
good escape by threatening them at the point of aruval and
also pelted stones on the public, which created panic and
terror situation in the area. During investigation, the
detenu was arrested and sent for judicial remand.
3.2. The second respondent, taking note of the above
ground case and finding that the detenu came to the adverse
notice of the authorities in two cases viz., Crime Nos.
473/2007 and 481/2007 on the file of T.1 Ambattur Police
Station for the offences punishable under Sections 365, 395
r/2 397, 392 and 506(2) IPC, having satisfied that there is
compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to
prevent him from indulging in such activities, which are
prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his
detention dubbing him as a Goonda.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner challenges
the order of detention on the ground of non application of
mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing
the order of detention. According to him, the detaining
authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the
detenu had moved bail applications before the District
Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, in
Crl.M.P.Nos.1699/2007 for Cr.No.473/2007, 1700/2007 for
481/2007 and 1697/2007 for 483/2007 and they were dismissed
and that no further bail application was moved. But, in the
special report submitted by the sponsoring authority found
at page 87 of the paper book furnished to the detenu, it is
stated that the detenu had moved only two bail applications
viz., Crl.M.P.Nos.1697 and 1699 of 2007 and they were
dismissed on 9.7.2007 and there is no mention about the
filing of Crl.M.P.No.1700 of 2007 for Crime No.481 of 2007.
That apart, even though the order of dismissal in
Crl.M.P.No.1700 of 2007 was relied upon in the grounds of
detention, the copy of the same was not furnished to the
detenu and in the absence of furnishing copy of dismissal
order in such bail application, the detenu was deprived of
his opportunity to make his effective representation and
hence the order of detention gets vitiated.
5. On perusal of the grounds of detention, we find that
in para 4, the detaining authority has stated that the
detenu had moved bail applications before the District
Principal Sessions Court, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.
Nos.1699/2007, 1700/2007 and 1697/2007 and they were
dismissed and that no further bail application was moved.
But, in the special report submitted by the sponsoring
authority, it is stated that the detenu had moved only
Crl.M.P.Nos.1697 and 1699 of 2007, they were dismissed and
he was not enlarged on bail and no bail application is
pending before the Court. Hence, we are convinced that
there is non-application of mind on the part of the
detaining authority and that the non-furnishing of the
dismissal order in Crl.M.P.No.1700 of 2007 to the detenu,
would obviously cause prejudice to the detenu while making
his effective representation seeking to set aside the order
of detention. We are, therefore, inclined to allow this
Habeas Corpus Petition.
In the result, the order of detention is set aside and
the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence
is required in connection with any other case.
ATR
To:
1. The Secretary to Government
Government of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai
Egmore
Chennai.
3. The Superintendent
Central Prison
Puzhal
Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court
Madras.