High Court Madras High Court

Smt.Alima Bai vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2006

Madras High Court
Smt.Alima Bai vs The District Collector And on 3 April, 2006
       

  

  

 
 
 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.23 of 2006 

Smt.Alima Bai                                  ... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The District Collector and
  District Magistrate,
  Kancheepuram District
  Kancheepuram.  

2.The Secretary to Government 
  Prohibition and Excise Department
  Fort St.George,
  Chennai-600 009 

3.The Superintendent 
  Central Prison,
  Vellore.                              ... Respondents

        Petition under Article 226  of  the  Constitution  of  India  for  the
issuance  of  a  Writ  of  Habeas  Corpus to call for the records of the first
respondent   culminating    with    the    Order    of    detention    bearing
Ref.No.B.D.F.G.I.S.V.No.41/2005  dated  17.8.2005  and  G.O.(Va) No.2705 dated 
28.10.2005 confirming the Order of detention dated 17.8.2005  and  to  produce
the detenu  Sathik @ Sathik Basha, S/o.  Ahamed Basha, detained in the Central 
Prison, Vellore , before this Court and and set him at liberty.

!For Petitioner :  Mr.T.Sathiyamoorthy

^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, who is the mother of the detenu by name Sathik @
Sathik Basha, 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
17.8.2005, 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 for the petitioner, by drawing
our attention to the fact, submitted that though the detenu was arrested and
remanded for the offence under Section 302 IPC in Crime No. 34 6 of 2005 on
the file of B2 Vishnukanchi Police Station in respect of occurrence that had
taken place on 16.7.2005, the detaining authority, while passing the order of
detention has not considered the same and merely stated that the ground
occurrence in Crime No.361 of 2005, which is for an offence under Section 307
IPC, arrived a conclusion that there is imminent possibility of his coming out
on bail by filing bail application. In other words, according to the learned
counsel, when the detenu was already arrested and remanded in graver offence,
namely, offence under Section 302 IPC, in respect of 8th adverse case, in the
absence of such awareness relating to the same, the passing of the detention
order based on the ground case which is for an offence under Section 307 IPC.,
the ultimate conclusion of the detaining authority is vitiated.

4.We verified the awareness shown by the detaining authority in
respect of the imminent possibility, which is available in Paragraph 5 ( i) of
the grounds of detention. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, it is seen from the grounds of detention in respect of
occurrence that took place on 16.7.2005, the detenu was arrested for an
offence in Crime No. 346 of 2005 and on the date of passing of the detention
order he is in prison and he has not come out on bail. While considering the
imminent possibility of his coming out on bail, the detaining authority has
merely taken note of the ground case, namely, Crime No.361 of 2005, which is
for lessor offence, namely, 307 IPC.

5. In such circumstances, in the absence of awareness relating to the
Crime No.346 of 2005, which is for a graver offence of Section 302 IPC, we are
of the view that the detaining authority has failed to take note of relevant
aspect while passing the order of detention. On this ground, we are of the
view that the detention order is liable to be quashed and accordingly, we
quash the same.

6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the
impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at
liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or
cause.

ga

To

1. The Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Vellore

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)

5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law and Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9.v

6 The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.