BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 23/02/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO H.C.P.(MD) No.25 of 2010 Kamarudeen .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Ramanathapuram District, Ramanathapuram. 3.The Inspector of Police, Bazaar Police Station, Ramanathapuram. .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in Cr.M.P.No.9/Goonda/2009 dated 15.12.2009 and quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body and person of the Detenu named as Rajkapoor, aged 30 years, now confined in Central Prison, Madurai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. !For Petitioner ... Mr.C.M.Arumugam ^For Respondents ... Mr.Isaac Manuel Additional Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by
P.MURGESEN, J.)
Challenging the order of the detention, the father of the detenu has filed
the petition. The detenu was detained by the second respondent District
Collector by his detention order Crl.M.P.No.9/Goonda /2009 dated 15.12.2009,
under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda”.
2. The detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are as follows:-
SlNo. Name of the Police station Section of law
and Crime No.
1 Kenikarai Police Station in 147, 148, 324, 326, 307 r/w
Crime No.348 of 2005 149 I.P.C.
2 Kenikarai Police Station in 380 and 382 I.P.C.
Crime No.167 of 2009
3 Bazaar Police Station in 294(b), 324, 323 and
Crime No.348 of 2009 506(ii) I.P.C.
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.608/2009
under Sections 294(b), 323 and 302 I.P.C. registered in Bazaar Police Station
for the incident that took place on 06.11.2009.
3. The only ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that
the detaining authority’s satisfaction about the possibility of the detenu
coming out on bail is not established. It is settled law that there must be
some material to hold that there is possibility of the detenu coming out on
bail. In the detention order the detaining authority has averred that
“5) I am aware that Thiru.K.Rajkaboor, aged 30/09, S/o.Kamarudeen, Mariammankoil
Street, Ramanathapuram, Ramanathapuram District is now in Central Prison,
Madurai in connection with the case was registered in Bazaar Police Station
Cr.No.608/09, u/s. 294(b), 323, 302 IPC. He did not file any bail petition till
now. However, bail was granted to the accused in the adverse cases in
Cr.No.167/09 of Kenikarai Police Station and Cr.No.348/09 of Bazaar Police
Station. Hence there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing
a bail application before the same or Higher Court.”
There must be satisfactory and acceptable materials on record to enable the
detaining authority to arrive at the conclusion that there is real possibility
of the detenu coming out on bail by filing another bail application. We perused
the materials carefully and meticulously and absolutely, there is no material
for the detaining authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction. So, the
subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is not correct.
Hence, the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.
4.Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of
detention in
Cr.M.P.No.9/Goonda/2009 dated 15.12.2009, passed by the second respondent 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 the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Ramanathapuram District,
Ramanathapuram.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Bazaar Police Station,
Ramanathapuram.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.