Allowed

M.Muthulakshmi, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Madras HC18 Feb 2013HCP(MD)/51/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act against a detenu. The court held that the detaining authority lacked cogent materials to substantiate the claim that the detenu would break bail bonds, rendering the subjective satisfaction liable to be quashed.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 20.09.2012 was quashed, and the detenu K.Magesh was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

M.Muthulakshmi, Vs the Secretary to Govt. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 18.02.2013

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN HABEAS CORPUS PETITION No.51 of 2013

¶6

M.Muthulakshmi .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. .. Respondents

¶7

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 records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in M.H.S.Confdl.No.75/2012 dated 20.09.2012 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu, K.Magesh, son of Krishnan, aged 27 years, before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and pass such further or other orders.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.S.R.A.Ramachandran

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the wife of detenu and challenge is made to the detention order passed by the second respondent, dated 20.09.2012, 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).

¶13

As per the grounds of detention passed by the second respondent, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶14

¶15

(i) Crime No.1323 of 2010 on the file of Courtallam Police Station under Sections 302 and 380 I.P.C. (ii) Crime No.622 of 2011 on the file of Courtallam Police Station under Sections 457, 380 and 511 I.P.C. (iii) Crime No.99 of 2012 on the file of Courtallam Police Station under Sections 454 and 511 I.P.C. @ 454, 380 and 511 I.P.C.

¶16

(iv) Crime No.335 of 2012 on the file of Courtallam Police Station under Sections 457 and 380 I.P.C.

¶17

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 09.00 hours on 21.07.2012 and in this regard, Courtallam Police Station has registered a case in Crime No.344 of 2012 for the commission of the offences under Sections 387 and 506(ii) I.P.C. (the ground case). The detenu was arrested on the same day and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai and was remanded to judicial custody till 28.09.2012.

¶18

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.

¶19

The learned counsel for the 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 is in remand in connection with four adverse cases as well as ground case and though he has filed applications for bail in connection with first, third and fourth adverse cases and ground case, all the applications were dismissed and though he has not filed any application for bail in the second adverse case, the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail in all the cases and would indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

¶20

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that no cogent and vital materials have been placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority to show that there is real possibility of the detenu being coming out on bail in all cases and would indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in the absence of the same, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority in that regard, is vitiated.

¶21

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also.

¶22

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the sponsoring authority has failed to place vital and cogent materials before the detaining authority to show that the detenu is likely to be coming out on bail in all the adverse cases as well as in the ground case and would indulge in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in the absence of such vital and cogent materials, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authority, is vitiated and therefore the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶23

¶24

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.75/2012 dated 20.09.2012, passed by the second. respondent is quashed. The detenu K.Magesh, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention/remand is required in connection with any other case/ proceedings.

¶25

SD/Assistant Registrar(CO) /True copy/

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶27

¶28

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3.The Inspector of Police, Courtallam Police Station, Tirunelveli District. 4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai. (in duplicate for the communication to the accused) 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. +1 CC to Mr.Sri.Ramachandran, Advocate, SR.NO.9554 smn H.C.P(MD)No.51 of 2013 18.02.2013 TR : 21.02.2013 : 3p/9c

¶29

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

M.Muthulakshmi, v. the Secretary to Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Muthulakshmi, 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.

S. Mahendran Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Veeralakshmi Vs Dt.Magistrate & Dt.Collector