Loading...

Vasuki vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 August, 2010

Madras High Court
Vasuki vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 24 August, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 24-8-2010

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN



H.C.P.No.587 of 2010



Vasuki							.. Petitioner

vs


1.The State of Tamil Nadu
  rep. By its
  Secretary to Government
  Home, Prohibition and
	Excise Department
  Secretariat
  Chennai 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
  Chennai City Suburban Area
  St. Thomas Mount
  Chennai							.. Respondents

	Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 2nd respondent vide his order in BDFGISSV No.169/2009 dated 13.12.2009 and to quash the same and to produce the body of the detenu viz., Periyasamy, son of Selvaraj before this Court and set him at liberty.

		For Petitioner		:  Mr.V.Devendhiran
		For Respondents	:  Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran
						   Additional Public
							Prosecutor 

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging an order of the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.169/2009 dated 13.12.2009 whereby her husband Periyasamy was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982.

2.The affidavit in support of the petition and the grounds of detention are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side.

3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in two adverse cases namely (1) S-14 Peerkankaranai P.S. Crime No.431/2009 under Sec.392 of IPC and (2) S-10 Pallikaranai P.S. Crime No.848/2009 under Sections 457, 380 IPC @ 392 IPC, and one ground case registered by S-10 Pallikaranai PS in Crime No.1121/2009 under Sections 341, 384, 427, 392 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that took place on 19.11.2009, and the detenu was arrested on the same day, the detaining authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, was of the opinion that the detenu should be detained under the said Act since his activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and hence passed the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

4.The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu has not moved for bail in any one of the adverse cases or ground case; but the authority even after recording so, has found that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail; that this was without any material, much less cogent material as the law would require and hence it has got to be set aside.

5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contention.

6.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 two 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. It is an admitted position that he has not moved any bail application in any one of the above cases which is quite clear from paragraph 4 of the detention order which reads as follows:

“4.I am aware that Thiru. Periyasamy is in remand in S-10, Pallikaranai Police Station Cr. No’s.848/2009 and 1121/2009. He has not moved any bail application so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a bail application before the Court of Sessions or Hon’ble High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time…”

7.From the above, it would be quite clear that he has not even filed any bail application, but the authority has made the above observation that there was real possibility of his coming out on bail. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials, much less cogent materials as the law would require. Under the circumstances, the order of detention has got to be set aside.

8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

nsv

To:

1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and
Excise Department
Secretariat
Chennai 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Suburban Area
St. Thomas Mount
Chennai

3.The Public Prosecutor
High Court,
Madras

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information