Allowed

S. Mahendran v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC18 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/48/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court found the order vitiated because the grounds booklet was served after the stipulated period. Consequently, the refusal to revoke the order due to lack of bail likelihood material was also invalid.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the detention order dated 21.09.2012 and directed the detenu be set at liberty forthwith.

S. Mahendran Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2013

¶3

CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶4

HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.48 of 2013

¶5

S.Mahendran .. Petitioner

¶6

vs.

¶7

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶8

represented by its Secretary to Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise

¶10

Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶12

3.The Superintendent of Borstal School, Pudukkottai Borstal School, Pudukkottai District. .. Respondents

¶13

Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus praying to call for entire records connected with the Detention Order in No.124/BDFGISSV/2012, dated 21.09.2012 passed by the second respondent against the petitioner's son namely M.Panchalarajan, (19/12), S/o.Mahendran, now confined at Pudukkottai Borstal School, Pudukkottai District has been detained and branded as Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas Act and set him at liberty forthwith and pass such further or other orders.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

The petitioner is the father of detenu and challenge is made to the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 21.09.2012, 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).

¶19

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

¶20

As per the grounds of detention passed by the second respondent dated 21.09.2012, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶21

(i) Crime No.816 of 2012 on the file of Tiruenlveli Town Police

¶22

¶23

Station under Sections 294(b), 323, 324 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

¶24

(ii) Crime No.1022 of 2012 on the file of Tirunelveli Town Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 448, 294(b), 324, 307, 366 and 506(ii) I.P.C.

¶25

In Paragraph 3 of the detention order, it is averred among other things that the detenu and other accused were involved in the commission of the offences, which took place at 10.00 hours on 04.08.2012 and in this regard, Tirunelveli Town Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.1037 of 2012 for the commission of the offences under Sections 341, 294 (b), 307 and 506(ii) I.P.C. (ground case). The detenu was arrested on 04.08.2012 in connection with the second adverse case and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I (in-charge), Tirunelveli and was remanded at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and subsequently the detenu was shifted to Borstal School, Nanguneri. In connection with the ground case also, the detenu was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No.I (in-charge), Tirunelveli on 17.08.2012, 31.08.2012 and 14.09.2012 through video conferencing and his remand was extended upto 28.09.2012.

¶26

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 and public health, clamped the order of detention.

¶27

Mr.I.Robert Chandrakumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of detention on the following grounds:

¶28

(i) Though the detention order came to be passed on 21.09.2012, the booklet in respect of the grounds of detention came to be served upon the detenu only on 27.09.2012 and since the booklet which forms part of the grounds of detention, came to be served upon the detenu after five days, the same is in violation of Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

¶29

(ii) The detenu is in remand in respect of the second adverse case as well as the ground case and though he did not file any bail application in both the cases, the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is likely to be coming out on bail, since in a similar case registered in Crime No.572 of 2011 on the file of Melapalayam Police Station, the concerned accused was granted bail by the Principal Sessions Judge, Tirunelveli, in Cr.M.P.No.3140 of 2011 on 17.08.2011. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that though no material has been placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that either the detenu himself or his relatives are taking steps to file an application for bail, is vitiated.

¶30

(iii) Though the detenue was arrested on 04.08.2012 in connection with the ground case as well as the second adverse case, the detention order came to be passed on 21.09.2012 and in between those days, there is no material to show that the detenu would be coming out on bail and he would indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and therefore on that ground also, the order of detention is vitiated.

¶31

On the said submissions, the Court heard the learned Additional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Public prosecutor also.

¶32

A perusal of the booklet served upon the detenu, would disclose that the booklet has been served only on 27.09.2012 and whereas the order of detention as well as the grounds of detention came to be served upon

¶33

¶34

the detenu on 22.09.2012. This Court is of the view that without furnishing booklet within the stipulated period under Section 8(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, he was prevented from making effective representation for revoking the order of detention and on that ground, the detention order, is vitiated.

¶35

As regards the second ground of attack, this Court is of the

¶36

view that though the detenu is in remand in connection with the second adverse case as well as ground case, he has not filed any application for bail and in the absence of any material to show that either the detenu himself or his relatives are taking steps to file an application for bail in both the cases, the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority, is vitiated.

¶37

In so far as the third ground of attack is concerned, the detenu was arrested in connection with second adverse case as well as ground case on 04.08.2012 and the detention order came to be passed on 21.09.2012 and in the absence of any material to show that either the detenu himself or his relatives are taking steps to file an application for bail, the order of detention which came to be passed on 21.09.2012 after the arrest of the detenu in connection with the second adverse case as well as ground case, is also vitiated. Hence, on all the grounds, the order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶38

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in No.124/BDFGISSV/2012, dated 21.09.2012, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu M.Panchalarajan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention/remand is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.

Sd/-

Deputy Registrar

/True copy/

Assistant Registrar

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶45

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶46

2.The Commissioner of Police, O/o. The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City.

¶47

3.The Superintendent of Borstal School, Pudukkottai Borstal School, Pudukkottai District.

¶48

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

¶49

5.The Joint Secretary to Govt. Public (L & O ) Fort Sr.George, Chennai -9.

¶50

+1cc to Mr.I.Rabert Chandrakumar Advocate SR.No.9748.

¶51

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

¶52

TS/21.02.2013/3P-7C

¶53

H.C.P(MD)No.48 of 2013

¶54

18.02.2013

S. Mahendran v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S. Mahendran 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

U. Lingam Vs the Superintendent of Police

R. Subramanian Vs the Superintendent of Police

Pushpam Vs the Superintendent of Police

Rajamani, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Veeralakshmi Vs Dt.Magistrate & Dt.Collector

M.Muthulakshmi, Vs the Secretary to Govt.