IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.1.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P.No.1782 of 2007 P. Thangadurai .. Petitioner Vs 1. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 2. The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Police Egmore, Chennai-8. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Duraisami for M/s.G.M.Shankar For Respondents : Mr.N.R.Elango Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.)
The petitioner, father of the detenu T.Muthukumar, aggrieved by the order of detention dated 29.11.2007 passed by the second respondent in Memo No.411/BDFGISSV/2007 branding the said detenu as Goonda under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), has filed this petition seeking issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating the order of detention, to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
2. The ground case, which led the detaining authority to pass the order of detention, is that on 30.9.2007 at about 13.00 hours, when Senthurpandian was proceeding in his motor cycle on old G.S.T. Road near Madhura Hotel, the detenu and one Jeeva @ Jeevanandham and Ramesh @ Rajesh waylaid him and demanded money at the point of knife by uttering filthy words. When the complainant refused to pay money, the detenu voluntarily took away a sum of Rs.500/- from his shirt pocket. At that time, Jeeva @ Jeevanandham took out a stick and beat the complainant over his head and snatched the wrist watch from him. The detenu and his associates also threatened the public, who came to the rescue of the victim, by brandishing their knives and out of fear and danger to their lives and properties, the public ran for safer places, which created panic and terror in the locality as well as dislocation of traffic, taking advantage of which, the detenu and his associates made their good escape from the spot. On the basis of the complaint preferred by the said Senthurpandian, a case was registered in S.14 Peerkankaranai Police Station Crime No.801/2007 for offences under Sections 341, 336, 427, 394, 397 and 506(ii) IPC and while the case was pending investigation, the detenu and his associates were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
3. Taking into consideration the above said ground case as well as an adverse case in Crime No.791 of 2007 on the file of S.14 Peerkankaranai Police Station for the offence under Sections 341 and 302 IPC, the second respondent having satisfied that there is a compelling necessity to detain the detenu in order to prevent him from indulging in the activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, ordered his detention dubbing him as a ‘Goonda’.
4. The main ground of attack is the non-application of mind on the part of detaining authority. According to the learned counsel, the detaining authority has stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu moved bail applications for the ground case as well as for the adverse case and the same are pending, but whereas the special report submitted by the sponsoring authority reflects that the said bail applications were already dismissed, which clearly shows the non-application of mind and hence, the order of detention gets vitiated.
5. We have perused the records produced before us. In the grounds of detention at para 4, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has moved bail applications before the Court of Sessions, Chengleput in Crl.M.P.Nos.8292 and 8293 of 2007 respectively in S14 Peerkankaranai P.S. Cr.Nos.801 and 791/2007 and the same are pending. But, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, in the special report dated 26.11.2007 submitted by the sponsoring authority, found at page 201, it is stated that the above said two bail applications were dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chenglepet, which is directly contrary to the averments made in the grounds of detention, as referred to above and it shows the clear non-application of mind by the detaining authority. Hence, we are inclined to allow this petition.
In the result, the order of detention is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
ATR
To
1. The Secretary,
Government of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition & Excise Dept.,
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Police
Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras.