BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 30/04/2009 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM and THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE R.MALA H.C.P.(MD) No.826 of 2008 Karuppaiah alias Kathikkuthu Karuppaiah .. Petitioner vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009. 2.The District Collector, Thiruchirapalli District. 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichirapalli District. 4.The Secretary, Advisory Board, Coovam House, Swamy Sivanandha Salai, Chennai - 600 002. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 passed in Crl.M.P.No.44 of 2008 dated 16.09.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Karuppaiah @ Kathikkuthu Karuppaiah, aged about 45 years son of Ponnon, now confined at Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty. !For petitioner ... Mr.R.Alagumani ^For respondents ... Mr.N.Daniel Manoharan Addl.Public Prosecutor :ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)
Challenge is made to an order of the second respondent in Crl.M.P.No.44 of
2008, dated 16.09.2008, whereby the petitioner was ordered to be detained under
the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-
Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,
Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982) terming him as a “Goonda”.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse
cases, which are as follows:-
Sl Name of the Police station and Crime No. Section of law
No.
1 Thuraiyur P.S. 394 IPC Crime No.403/2006 2 Uppiliapuram P.S. 341, 294(b), 387, 427, Crime No.126/2007 506(ii) IPC r/w Section 3 of TNPPD Act. 3 Uppiliapuram P.S. 392 IPC Crime No.178/2007
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case in Crime No.155/2008
under Sections 341, 294(b) and 392 IPC registered in Uppiliapuram Police
Station. Pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that
the detenu was involved in three adverse cases and one ground case, after
scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority recorded his
subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to
the maintenance of public order and that he should be detained as a “Goonda” and
accordingly, made the order of detention, which is the subject matter of
challenge before this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in his sincere attempt of assailing
the order brought to the notice of the Court that while no bail application was
filed in the ground case in Crime No.155/2008, the detaining authority, had made
an observation in his order that there was a real possibility of the detenu
coming out on bail, without any basis or material whatsoever. Mere apprehension
in the mind of the authority is not sufficient, it must be supported by
materials.
5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above
contention and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6.After looking into the materials available, the Court has to necessarily
agree with the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. It is not in controversy that the detenu was involved in three adverse
cases and one ground case that took place on 21.08.2008 and he was arrested on
the same day. At the time of passing the order under challenge, no bail
application was filed or was pending before any Court of criminal law in the
ground case but the detaining authority in his order observed that there was a
real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It was only an apprehension
in the mind of the detaining authority without any material or basis whatsoever.
Thus, it would certainly affect the order of detention.
8.On the above ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be
set at liberty forthwith unless he is required in connection with any other
case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
sj/asvm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The District Collector,
Thiruchirapalli District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Trichy Central Prison,
Trichirapalli District.
4.The Secretary,
Advisory Board,
Coovam House,
Swamy Sivanandha Salai,
Chennai – 600 002.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.