Allowed

Vellaiammal, v. the District Collector and

Madras HC13 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/133/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The High Court quashed the order due to lack of cogent material supporting the claim that the detenu was likely to secure bail.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus petition allowed; order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.88/2012 dated 24.11.2012 quashed; detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Vellaiammal, Vs the District Collector and — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 13.02.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶4

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.133 of 2013 Vellaiammal .. Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli – 9.

¶5

2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶6

Chennai – 600 009.

¶7

3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents

¶8

Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to direct the respondents to produce the body of detenu namely Chellaiah aged about 29 years son of Chellakannu before this Honourable Court who is now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai in pursuant to the detention order passed by the first respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.88/2012 dated 24.11.2012 and to call for the records and quash the same and release the detenu at liberty forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Mohideen Basha

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi,

¶11

Addl.Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention, dated 24.11.2012, passed by the first respondent under which, the detenu has been branded as a "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).

¶15

As per the grounds of detention dated 24.11.2012, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:

¶16

(i) Crime No.49 of 2011 on the file of Manur Police Station under Section 379 I.P.C. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (ii) Crime No.233 of 2012 on the file of Manur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 153(A), 323, 307

¶17

¶18

Act.

¶19

I.P.C and r/w 4 of Prevention of Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act and 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage loss Act.

¶20

(iii) Crime No.234 of 2012 on the file of Manur Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 153(A) I.P.C and 3 of Tamil Nadu Public Property Prevention of Damage loss Act.

¶21

In Paragraph No.3 of the grounds of detention, it is averred among other things that the detenu was involved in the commission of offence which took place on 14.11.2012 at about 16.30 hours and in this regard, Manur Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.333 of 2012 for the commission of the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 324, 307 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code and read with 4 of Prevention Tamil Nadu Women Harassment Act, 2002 (ground case). The detenu was arrested on 17.11.2012 and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.5, Tirunelveli on the same day and was ordered to be remanded till 30.11.2012.

¶22

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.

¶23

The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.6 of the grounds of detention and would submit that as per the averments made therein, the detenu came out on bail in all three adverse cases and he has not moved any bail application in the ground case. However, the sponsoring authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu is very likely to come out on bail in ground case, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or higher Courts.

¶24

It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the sponsoring authority has stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu is very likely to come out on bail in ground case, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or higher Courts, no material whatsoever has been placed before the detaining authority to show that the detenu is likely to file bail application in the ground case and further that similar materials have not also been furnished and hence prays for quashment of impugned order of detention.

¶25

On the above submissions, this Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

¶26

A perusal of paragraph No.3, would disclose that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction as there is a real possibility of the detenu is very likely to come out on bail in ground case, since in similar cases bails are granted by the concerned Court or higher Courts.

¶27

In the considered opinion and in the absence of vital and cogent materials as to steps taken to file bail application in this ground case and similar case materials, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detaining authority in that regard is vitiated and hence, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

¶28

¶29

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.88/2012, dated 24.11.2012, passed by the first respondent is quashed. The detenu Chellaiah is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention/remand is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Deputy Registrar(W) /True copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli – 9. 2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station, Tirunelveli. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. (in duplicate for communication to detenue) 5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George, Chennai.9 6.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Ps HCP(MD)No.133 of 2013 13.02.2013 TR : 15.02.2013 : 3p/8c : IT

¶32

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

Vellaiammal, v. the District Collector and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vellaiammal, v. the District Collector and

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

C.Dinakaran, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Palaniyammal Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Sundaraj, Vs the Inspector of Police

Pushpam Vs the Superintendent of Police

B.Asha Vs Deputy Superintendent of Polic

Kalavathy, Vs the Addl.Secretary,Govt. of