Allowed

S.Mohan v. the Secretary to Govt

Madras HC11 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/124/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This is a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act. The court quashed the detention order because the sponsoring authority failed to place materials showing the detenu's likelihood of being released on bail, vitiating the subjective satisfaction for his detention.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention dated 24.09.2012 is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless remand is required in another case.

S.Mohan Vs the Secretary to Govt — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

¶3

Dated : 11.02.2013

¶4

Coram

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶8

H.C.P.(MD)No.124 of 2013

¶9

S.Mohan .. Petitioner

¶10

Vs -

¶11

1.The State of Tamilnadu

¶12

Secretary to Government,

¶13

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secratariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶14

2.The District Collector and Magistrate Tirunelveli District, .. Respondents

¶15

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ order or direction calling for the records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in M.H.S. Confdl.No.77 of 2012 dated 24.09.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu namely Anish Raja aged about 21 years now detained in Borstal School, District Jail, Pudukottai and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Venkatesan

¶17

For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶18

ORDER

¶19

(Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN,J .)

¶20

The petitioner is the father of the detenu. Challenge is made to the order of detention dated 24.09.2012 passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as "Goonda" and detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

¶21

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. As per the grounds of detention dated 24.09.2012, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶22

(I) Crime No.757 of 2011 on the file of the Kanniyakumari District, Vadachery Police Station under section 392 IPC.

¶23

¶24

(ii) Crime No.641 of 2011 on the file of the Kanniyakumari District, Vadachery Police Station under section 392 IPC.

¶25

(iii)Crime No.489 of 2011 on the file of Kanniyakumari District, Vadachery Police Station under section 392 IPC

¶26

In paragraph - 3 of the grounds of detention, it is averred among other things that the detenu was also involved in the commission of offence which took place on 28.08.2012 at about 12.00 hours and in this regard, Koodankulam Police Station has registered a case in Cr.No.322 of 2012 for the commission of offences under Sections 294(b), 386, 506(ii) IPC and 25(1)(A) of Arms Act, 1959 (ground case). The detenu was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Valliyur and ordered to be remanded till 25.09.2012 and now he is lodged at Borstal School, Nanguneri.

¶27

The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention.

¶28

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph – 6 of the grounds of detention and would submit that as per the averments made therein, the detenu is in remand in connection with ground case and he filed an application for bail in Cr.M.P.No.4152 of 2012 on 06.09.2012 and it is yet to be disposed of. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the bail application is pending right from 06.09.2012 and the order of detention came to be passed on 24.09.2012, the sponsoring authority has failed to place vital materials before the detaining authority to show that the detenu is likely to come out on bail in the bail application filed by him in the ground case and in the absence of such vital and cogent materials, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated and hence he prays for quashment of the order of detention.

¶29

This court heard the submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also.

¶30

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the sponsoring authority has failed to place any material before the detaining authority to show the likelihood of the detenu to come out on bail in Cr.M.P.No.4152 of 2012 pertains to ground case and in the absence of such vital and cogent materials, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging in activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, is vitiated and hence on the sole ground, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶31

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed in M.H.S. Confdl.No.77 of 2012 dated 24.09.2012 by the Second respondent, is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his remand/detention is required, in accordance with law, in connection with any other case/proceedings.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Assistant Registrar(AS)

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

/True copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶37

¶38

¶39

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secratariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶40

2.The District Collector and Magistrate Tirunelveli District,

¶41

3.The Superintendent, borstal School, District Jail, Pudukkottai.

¶42

4.The Joint Secretary Government Public (Law & Order) Fort, Saint George,Chennai -9.

¶43

5.The Addl.Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶44

+1cc to M/S.Right Law Associates, Madurai Bench of Maduras High Court, Madurai. Mj

¶45

TS/14/02/2013/3P-7C

¶46

H.C.P.(MD)No.124 of 2013

¶47

11.02.2013

¶48

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Mohan v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Mohan v. the Secretary to Govt

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Meenaloshini Vs the Superintendent of Police

S. Suguna Vs the Secretary to Government

G.Seetharaman Vs the Secretary to Government

M.Raju, Vs the Commissioner of Police

Sunil, Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Bala Krishnan, Vs the Superintendent of Police