Allowed

Sebasthiammal v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC10 Mar 2011HCP(MD)/21/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition. It set aside an order detaining Dinakaran as a 'Goonda' under the specific Act of 1982. The Court held the detaining authority failed to apply its mind, inferring bail likelihood without a filed bail application.

What did the court decide?

The habeas corpus petition is allowed, the order of detention dated 05.10.2010 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

Sebasthiammal Vs the Commissioner of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

DATED: 10.03.2011

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI

¶6

Habeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.21 of 2011

Sebasthiammal

.. Petitioner

Vs.

1.The Commissioner of Police, Trichirapalli City, Trichirapalli.

¶11

2.The State rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶12

3.The Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, Trichirapalli.

¶13

.. Respondents

¶14

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents herein to produce the detenu Dinakaran, son of Alex, aged 29 years, who has been termed as "GOONDA" who is now confined in Central Prison, Trichy and call for records in C.P.O./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.66/ 2010 dated 05.10.2010 passed by the first respondent herein and set aside the same and set the detenu at liberty.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthilkumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan, Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

(Order of the Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI, J.)

¶18

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent in his Proceedings C.P.O./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.66/2010 dated 05.10.2010 whereby the petitioner's son by name Dinakaran was ordered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-

¶19

¶20

grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14/1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

¶21

2.The order of detention is challenged by the petitioner herein. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised various grounds, he has restricted to the extent that there was nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority while considering the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that, in the ground case as well as in the last adverse case, the detenu has not filed any bail application, but the detaining authority has observed that there are real chances of the detenu coming out on bail, as the petitioner is taking steps to file bail application. Learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed out that except this vague allegation, the detaining authority has not applied its mind, while passing the order of detention. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of A.Murugesan vs. Secretary to Government, Food, Co-Operation and Consumer Protection Department, Chennai - 600 009 and others [(2010) 1 MLJ 950] in support of his contention.

¶22

3.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that in all the adverse cases, the detenu has filed bail application and was granted bail and therefore, the detaining authority was satisfied that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.

¶23

4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents, and perused the materials available on record.

¶24

In the judgment reported in (2010) 1 MLJ 950 supra, it has been held as under:-

¶25

"11. Apart from the above, in the instant case, it is an admitted position that he has not made any bail application before any Court of criminal law in Crime No.298 of 2009 and the same is also recorded by the detaining authority. But, at the same time, the authority would further add that bail was likely to be granted, and if he is let at large, his activities would be prejudicial to the public distribution system. While not even a bail application was filed before a Court of criminal law, it would be too early for the authority to record that he is likely to come out on bail either, or if he is let to remain at large,he will indulge in such activities in future which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of supplies of commodities essential to the community. This would be indicative of the nonapplication of mind, and it is only an expression of the impression made by the authority without any material, much less cogent material whatsoever. Under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances, the order would suffer in the above grounds. The contention putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in four adverse cases, he was

¶26

¶27

either admonished or actually fined cannot be a reason to set aside the order. But, on the two grounds mentioned above, the order is liable to be set aside."

¶28

6.In the present case, in paragraph-5 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has not filed any bail application in Crime Nos.1521 of 2010 and 1528 of 2010, but however, it is stated that they have drawn the inference that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The fact remains that the other adverse cases relates to the years 2006 to 2009. Following the principles enunciated in the judgment of this Court in (2010) 1 MLJ 950 supra, this Court is of the considered opinion that the detaining authority had passed the impugned order of detention without applying its mind and hence the order of detention is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶29

7.In view of the above, this habeas corpus petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the first respondent in his Proceedings C.P.O./T.C./I.S./D.O.No.66/ 2010 dated 05.10.2010 is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Deputy Registrar (LA)

/True Copy/

Assistant Registrar