BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04/02/2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.MURGESEN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJA ELANGO H.C.P.(MD) No.706 of 2009 Karpagam ... Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, represented by The Secretary to Government, Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi -9. ... Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for records pertaining to the Order of Detention passed by the Second Respondent in proceedings HS(M) Confdl.No.16/2009 dated 29.06.2009 and set aside the same as highly arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and consequently direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenue - the Petitioner's husband herein, S.Peter, S/o.Solamonraj, aged about 39, presently confined in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Diwakaran ^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 wife of the detenu has filed
the petition. The detenu was detained by the second respondent District
Collector by his detention order HS(M) Confdl.No.16/2009 dated 29.06.2009, under
Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a “Goonda”.
2. The detenu was involved in three adverse cases, which are as follows:-
Sl.No. Name of the Police station . Section of law
and Crime No
1 Nazareth P.S. 452, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) I.P.C.
Crime No.124/2008 and 4 of TNPWH Act R/W 34 I.P.C.
2 Kurumpur P.S.
Crime No.162/2008 302 IPC
3 Thalamuthu Nagar P.S. 147, 148 and 302 IPC r/w
Crime No.182/2009 3(2)(v) of SC/ST Act.
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.210/2009
under Sections 341, 386, 307 and 506(ii) IPC r/w 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act registered in
Thalamuthu Nagar Police Station for the incident that took place on 25.05.2009.
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
“I am aware that Thiru. Peter was arrested on 25.05.2009 in ground case
Cr.No.210/09, and he was produced before the court of J.M. No.II, Thoothukudi on
26.05.2009. He was duly remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central
Prison, Palayamkottai as a remand prisoner up to 09.06.2009. His remand has been
extended till 07.07.09. I am also aware that in ground case Cr.No.210/09, he
has filed a bail application in Cr.M.P.No.1557/09, before the Principal Sessions
Court, Thoothukudi and the same has been dismissed on 22.06.09. He has filed a
bail application in Cr.M.P.No.1486/09 before the Principal Sessions Court,
Thoothukudi in preamble case Cr.No.182/09 and the same has been dismissed on
11.06.2009. But there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing
another application for the above cases before the same court 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 the respondents are unable to say
any ground or material to show that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by
the detaining authority is based on any material. Absolutely, there is no
material 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 HS(M) Confdl.No.16/2009 dated 29.06.2009, 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 Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat,
Fort St. George,
Chennai.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate,
Thoothukudi District,
Thoothukudi -9.