Allowed

Rajamani, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC18 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/32/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this habeas corpus petition, the Madrai Bench quashed a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that the detaining authority was vitiated for failing to place material showing the detenu was likely to be released on bail in pending cases.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in P.D.O.No.9/2012 dated 14.12.2012 is quashed, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless otherwise required in other proceedings.

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

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2013 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.32 of 2013

¶4

Rajamani .. Petitioner

¶5

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

¶6

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

¶7

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District. .. Respondents

¶8

Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in P.D.O.No.9/2012, dated 14.12.2012 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce body and person of the petitioner's son by name Jeevanantham @ Jeeva, Son of Malaiyappan, aged about 37 years detained in Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such further or other orders.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani

¶10

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

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of detenu and challenge is made to the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 14.12.2012, 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).

¶14

As per the grounds of detention passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶15

(i) Crime No.256 of 2006 on the file of Karambakudi

¶16

Police Station under Sections 7(a) read with 26(2) of the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Indian Arms Act, 1959.

¶17

¶18

(ii) Crime No.207 of 2007 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. @ 294(b) and 324 I.P.C.

¶19

(iii) Crime No.215 of 2009 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

¶20

(iv) Crime No.217 of 2009 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C. @ 147, 148, 452, 294(b), 324, 326 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

¶21

(v) Crime No.309 of 2011 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station under Sections 294(b) and 307 I.P.C.

¶22

(vi) Crime No.344 of 2012 on the file of Karambakudi Police Station under Sections 341, 294(b) and 307 I.P.C.

¶23

In Paragraph 3 of the detention order, it is averred among other things that the detenu was involved in the commission of the offence which took place at 17.00 hours on 30.11.2012 and in this regard, Karambakudi Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.378 of 2012 for the commission of the offence under Section 392 I.P.C.. The detenu was arrested at about 19.00 hours on 30.11.2012 and based on the confession statement obtained from him, certain incriminating articles were seized and later on he was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Alangudi, on 01.12.2012 and remanded to judicial custody and his judicial custody was further extended upto 28.12.2012.

¶24

The detaining authority 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.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to paragraph No.5 of the grounds of detention and would submit that as per the averments made therein, the detenu is in custody in connection with the ground case and he filed an application for bail in Cr.M.P.No.5646 of 2012 before the Judicial Magistrate's Court, Alangudi and it was dismissed on 06.12.2012

¶26

It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though it is stated by the detaining authority that there is a real possibility of the detenu being coming out bail in the ground case and would indulge in such further activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, no material whatsoever has been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority to show that the detenu is likely to be coming out on bail, since, in similar case, the concerned accused, who were involved in the commission of the offences, have been enlarged on bail, and in the absence of the same, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated and hence prays for the quashment of the detention order.

¶27

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also.

¶28

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

¶29

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sponsoring authority has failed to place the material before the

¶30

¶31

detaining authority to show that in similar case, the concerned accused who were involved in the commission of the offences, have been enlarged on bail and in the absence of such vital and cogent materials, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated and therefore the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶32

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in P.D.O.No.9/2012, dated 14.12.2012, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu Jeevanantham @ Jeeva is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention/remand is required in connection with any other case/ proceedings.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶35

/True copy/

¶36

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶37

¶38

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶39