IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:- 18.01.2011
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
H.C.P. No.1914 of 2010
Raji ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department.,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner
of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling upon the production of the records relating to the detention order dated 3.9.2010 made in detention order Memo No.505/BDFGISSV/2010 passed by the second respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Raji, male, aged 28 years, S/o. Manickam before this Court and set the detenu at liberty, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr. A. Ramesh
For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian,
Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.505/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 3.9.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.340 of 2007 registered by Acharapakkam Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.476 of 2008 registered by Acharappakkam Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.183 of 2007 registered by Sithamur Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.187 of 2007 registered by Sithamur Police Station for an offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No.583 of 2010 registered by J-3 Guindy Police Station for an offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.598 of 2010 registered by J-3 Guindy Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 395 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 9.8.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. While advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu has not moved for bail in the fifth adverse case and the ground case. But the Authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The Authority has also stated that in similar cases, bail was granted and mentioned two crime numbers viz. Crime No.381 of 2009 registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station and Crime No.955 of 2009 registered at C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, but the materials supplied to the detenu pertains to Crime Nos.427 and 382 of 2010, which were nothing to do with other two crime numbers registered by V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station and C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station. In such circumstances, the observation made by the Authority in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is without any material.
5. Learned counsel added further that there was a violation of the constitutional right. Arrest was shown in Crime No.598 of 2010 at about 8.00 hours on 9.8.2010 and he was produced before the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at about 12.15 hours on 10.8.2010 and thus, it was beyond 24 hours i.e. nearly with a delay of four hours 15 minutes. No explanation was offered for the delay caused. This would vitiate the detention order.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a ‘Goonda’, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to five adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8. It is not in controversy that the detenu has not moved for bail in the fifth adverse case and the ground case. But the Authority has stated in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The Authority has also stated that in similar cases, bail was granted and mentioned two crime numbers viz. Crime No.381 of 2009 registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station and Crime No.955 of 2009 registered at C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station, but the materials supplied to the detenu pertains to Crime Nos.427 and 382 of 2010, which were nothing to do with other two crime numbers registered by V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station and C-1 Flower Bazaar Police Station. In such circumstances, the observation made by the Authority in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is without any material much less cogent material.
9. Added further, there was a violation of the constitutional right. Arrest was shown in Crime No.598 of 2010 at about 8.00 hours on 9.8.2010 and he was produced before the 9th Metropolitan Magistrate Court at about 12.15 hours on 10.8.2010 and thus, it was beyond 24 hours i.e. nearly with a delay of four hours 15 minutes. No explanation was offered for the delay caused. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.505/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 3.9.2010. The detenu, namely, Raji, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
(M.C.J.) (M.S.N.J.)
18.01.2011
Index :- Yes.
Internet:- Yes.
ssa.
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise
Department.,
Fort St. George, Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner
of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J. &
M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.
ssa.
H.C.P. No.1914 2010
18.01.2011