In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 11/07/2006
Coram
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM
and
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN
Habeas Corpus Petition No.403 of 2006
Selvam .. Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 8. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
praying for issuance of writ of habeas corpus as stated therein.
For petitioner : Mr. M. Rajavelu
For respondents: Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran
Addl. Public Prosecutor
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V. DHANAPALAN,J.)
The petitioner by name Selvam, challenges the impugned order
of detention dated 10.03.2006, detaining him as “Goonda” under Section 3 (1 )
of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous activities of Bootleggers, Drug
Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers
and Video Pirates Act, 1981 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1 982).
2. Heard both sides.
3. At the foremost, the learned counsel for the petitioner by
drawing our attention to para 4 of the grounds of detention submitted that
though bail was granted in respect of Crime Nos.987/2005, 70/2006 and 73/2006
on the file of J9 Thuraipakkam Police Station, the detaining authority
proceeded on the misconception and incorrect fact that the detenu has not
moved any bail application so far. In support of the above contention, the
learned counsel has placed the details regarding copy of the bail petition and
orders passed therein, which show that the detenu has moved bail application
for the first adverse case in Crime No.987 of 2005 on 07.02.2006 and the same
was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Alandur at Chennai in
Crl.MP.No.817 of 2006 on 13.02.2006 and again the detenu moved another bail
petition on 03.03.2006 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial
Magistrate, Alandur at Chennai in Crl.MP.No.1459 of 2006 on 08.03.2006. As
rightly pointed out, this fact was suppressed by the sponsoring authority and
the detaining authority has come out with incorrect statement, viz., that the
detenu has not moved any bail application so far, which amply shows the
non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 4.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by drawing our attention to
Sub-clause (3) and (4) of para 12 of the judgment in the case of Abdul Sathar
Ibrahim Manik vs. Union of India and others reported in 1992 SCC (Crl.) 1
contended that there is no error or any other flaw in arriving subjective
satisfaction regarding imminent possibility of coming out on bail.
5. We verified the conclusion arrived at by the Honble
Supreme Court in the above cited decision 1992 SCC (Crl.) 1. Sub-Clause 3 and
4 of paragraph 12 of the above cited decision relates to non-supply of copies
of bail application or the order refusing the bail to the detenue and they
also observed that failure to supply the copies of bail application or
refusing bail would not affect the detenus right in making effective
representation. In our case, the grievance of the petitioner is that the
detenu moved bail applications in respect of Crime Nos.987 of 2005 and 70 of
2006 and were dismissed, by the learned Magistrate, but the detaining
authority without reference to the same has stated that the detenu has not
moved any bail application, which is factually in correct and also reflects
his non application of mind on the relevant materials. Accordingly, we accept
the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and on this ground
the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed; accordingly, this
petition is allowed. The order of detention impugned in the petition is set
aside and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the
custody unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Kh
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Government of Tamil Nadu
Fort St. George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Greater Chennai
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Inspector General of Prisons
Chennai 2.
4. The Superintendent
Central; Prison, Chennai.
5. The Director General of Police
Tamil Nadu, Chennai 4.
6. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.