BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 29/06/2010
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
H.C.P.(MD) No.378 of 2010
M.Thangapandian .. Petitioner
vs
1.The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep.by the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
D-2, Sellur Police Station,
Madurai. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the order of
detention passed by the second respondent in No.6/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 14.9.2009
and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the
detenu, Mr.M.Thangapandian, S/o.Mayandi Thevar, presently confined at Central
Prison, Madurai before this Court and set him at liberty.
!For petitioner ... Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi
^For respondents ... Mr.Daniel Manoharan
Addl.Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J)
This Writ Application challenges an Order of Detention made by the second
respondent on 14.9.2009 whereby the petitioner herein 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) branding him as a “Goonda”.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and
looked into all the materials available, in particular, the order under
challenge.
3. The detenu was involved in eight adverse cases as follows:
SlNo Police Station Section of law
Cr.No. & Date
1 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.81/2009
2 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.82/2009
3 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.83/2009
4 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.84/2009
5 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.94/2009
6 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.95/2009
7 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.97/2009
8 D2 Sellur (Crime) PS 379 IPC
Cr.No.98/2009
Apart from that, the detenu was involved in one ground case registered by D2
Sellur (Crime) PS in Crime No.1879/2009 under Sections 341, 397 and 506(ii) IPC
for the occurrence that took place on 21.8.2009.
4. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by
the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in eight adverse cases and
in one ground case as referred to above, on scrutiny of the materials, the
detaining authority has made the order under challenge branding him as a
“Goonda” after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the
detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and the same is the
subject matter of challenge before this Court.
5. Mr.D.Shanmugaraja Sethupathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, inter
alia, assailing the order of detention would submit that the detenu filed bail
application before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.II, Madurai in respect of
the ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009 and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009
on the ground that the case was exclusively triable by Courts of Sessions.
Thus, the said bail application was dismissed. The order of detention came to
be passed on 14.9.2009 but the day when the order came to be passed, no
application was pending before any Court of criminal law insofar as the ground
case was concerned but the detaining authority has stated that there was a real
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Thus, the observation was made
without any basis or material much less cogent material. Under the
circumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
6. According to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the
State, a statement was recorded from the wife of the detenu that she was taking
steps to apply for bail. Hence, the detaining authority was perfectly correct
in recording so.
7. After looking into the materials available, the Court cannot
countenance the reason adduced by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for
the State. It is true a bail application was filed before the Court of Judicial
Magistrate No.II, Madurai in respect of the ground case in Crime No.1879 of 2009
and the same was dismissed on 31.8.2009 on the ground that the case was
exclusively triable by Courts of Sessions and thereafter, no bail application
was filed. Thus, it would be quite clear that no bail application was filed or
was pending on 14.9.2009 when the order under challenge came to be passed. The
statement recorded from the wife of the detenu that she is taking steps to bring
him out on bail cannot be taken as a material, muchless cogent material. Under
the circumstances, the observation made by the detaining authority that there
was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is only an expression of
apprehension passing in the mind of the detaining authority without any basis or
material much less cogent material. Under the circumstances, the order of
detention has got to be set aside.
8.Accordingly, the order of detention is set aside. The detenu is
directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in
connection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
asvm
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Madurai City,
Madurai.
3.The Inspector of Police,
D-2, Sellur Police Station,
Madurai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.