In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 17.09.2008
Coram:
The Honourable Mr.Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAO
and
The Honourable Mr.Justice S.TAMILVANAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.906 of 2008
Indira ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Government of Tamil Nadu rep. by
the Secretary to the Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Egmore,
Chennai - 600 008. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the order of detention dated 28.5.2008, passed by the second respondent, quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Sathiyanathan S/o Wellington, who is presently detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner .. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu for
Mr.A.Shivkumar.
For Respondents .. Mr.N.R.Elango, Addl.P.P.
*****
(Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J)
The petitioner, is the wife of the detenu by name Sathiyanathan S/o Wellington, who is detained as a “Slum Grabber” as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, by the second respondent by the impugned detention order dated 28.5.2008, challenges the same in this Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.
3. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in para 4 of the grounds of detention, it is stated that the detenu has moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate-II Court, Poonamallee in Crl.M.P.Nos.3392, 3398, 3394 and 3395 of 2008 respectively in respect of Cr.Nos.196/2008, 197/2008, 200/2008 and 201/2008 and the same were pending. Another bail application also moved before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur in Crl.M.P.Nos.1501 and 1502 of 2008 in respect of Cr.Nos.198/2008 and 202/2008 and the same were pending. Therefore, there is every likelihood of his coming out on bail for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the same Court, or Higher Courts after a lapse of time. Further, the details of the complaints were not furnished in the adverse cases. This would show that there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and there is also pre determination on the part of the sponsoring authority. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
4. We consider it appropriate and we are of the considered view that there is non-application on the part of the detaining authority in respect of imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and there is pre-determination on the part of the sponsoring authority in so far as non-furnishing of details of complainants in respect of adverse cases. Therefore, on these two grounds, the order of detention is liable to be set aside.
5. Therefore, we set aside the impugned order of detention and direct the detenu shall be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed on the above terms.
(E.D.R., J) (S.T., J)
17.09.2008
gr.
To
1. The Secretary to the Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.
ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J and S.TAMILVANAN, J gr. H.C.P.NO.906 OF 2008 17.09.2008