IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated: 03/04/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice J.A.K.SAMPATHKUMAR
Habeas Corpus Petition No.1340 of 2005
Rajesh ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government of
Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the
issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records relating to
the petitioner's detention passed passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide
detention order No.304/2005 BDFGISV/2005 dated 24.06.2005 on the file of the
respondents herein, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents
herein to produce the body of the petitioner detenu Rajesh normally resident
son of Masilamani at No.39, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Vadapalani, Chennai-26
presently confined in the Central Prison, Chennai-3 before this Court and set
him at liberty.
!For Petitioner : Mr.V.Nithyanandam
^For Respondents : Mr.Abudhukumar Rajarathinam
Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.)
The petitioner by name Rajesh, who was detained as a “Goonda” as
contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of
Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982), by the impugned detention order dated 24.06.2005, challenges the same
in this Petition.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned
Government Advocate for the respondents.
3. At the foremost, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by
drawing our attention to paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, would submit
that in view of the fact that the petitioner has not moved any bail petition,
there is no imminent possibility of his coming out on bail and this material
aspect has not been considered by the detaining authority. Hence, the
detention order has to be quashed on the ground of non application of mind.
4. In the light of the said contention, we verified paragraph 4 of
the grounds of detention. It makes it clear that the detaining authority was
very well aware that the detenu was in remand in R5 Virugambakkam Police
Station Crime No.783/2005. He also verified that the detenu has not moved any
bail application till the date of passing of the detention order. However,
after taking note of his past records and after finding that by filing bail
application, there is every possibility for the detenu/petitioner to come out
on bail, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and
after satisfying himself, the detaining authority has passed the impugned
order of detention. In the light of the said particulars furnished in
paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, it cannot be claimed that the
detaining authority has not applied his mind. On the other hand, there is no
dispute that if the detenu files bail application, on the orders of the Court,
he will come out on bail at any movement. In such circumstances, we are of
the view that relevant aspects have been considered by the detaining authority
and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be
sustained.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, by pointing out the
document at page 17 of the booklet, submitted that the same is not readable
since it is not legible and because of the same, the detenu is not in a
position to make an effective representation. We verified the relevant page
viz., page No.17. The said page is readable and legible. We are unable to
accept the said contention. Even otherwise, as rightly pointed out by the
learned Government Advocate, it is a copy of case diary related to the fifth
adverse case and it is not a relied upon document. Hence, we reject the said
contention also.
6. Except the above contentions, no other grounds have been urged.
Consequently, the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and the same is dismissed.
raa
To
1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise
Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai.
(In duplicate for communication to the petitioner)
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
6. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.