Quashed

Suganantham v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC14 Jun 2014HCP/1860/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under State Act 14 of 1982. It held that the detaining authority erred in reasoning by citing a bail order from a similar case involving different offences as grounds to predict the detenu might secure bail in the present case. Consequently, the order was unsustainable.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order BDFGISSV No.596/2013 dated 03.08.2013 was quashed and the detenu was ordered set at liberty.

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

Habeas Corpus Petition No.1860 of 2013

Suganantham

...Petitioner

-vs-

The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police,

¶12

Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai. ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the impugned order in BDFGISSV No.596/2013 dated 03.08.2013 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Prasannakumar @ Mohan Son of Sugunantham aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.596/2013 dated 03.08.2013.

¶15

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

¶16

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶17

Sl.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1	S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.426 of 2013	341, 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC
2.	S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.602 of 2013	341, 294(b), 397, 506 (ii) IPC
3	S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.678 of 2013	384, 506(ii) IPC

¶18

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 26.06.2013 by the Sub Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam Police Station in Crime No.658 of 2013 for offences under Sections 147, 341, 364, 323 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶19

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focussed his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority relied on a similar case wherein bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1361 of 2009 and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of adverse and ground cases, but offences for which the accused in the said similar case were arrested and remanded to judicial custody were entirely different from the present one and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶20

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶21

A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in the similar case registered at V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station in Crime No.381 of 2009 for offences under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) TNPP(D&L) bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore in Crl.M.P.No.1361 of 2009, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail applications in respect of both ground and adverse cases. A perusal of the booklet at Page No.329, annexure of bail order, relied on by the detaining authority, which was granted in the similar case would go to show that petitioner/accused therein were

¶22

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

¶23

granted bail in respect of offences punishable under Sections 147, 448, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and 3(1) TNPP(D&L) Act, whereas in the present case, the detenu was involved in cases for commission of offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 324, 397 and 506(ii) IPC (adverse case) and Sections 147, 341, 364, 323 and 506(ii) (ground case). A comparison of offences indicated in the similar case with that of present one makes it clear that both cases cannot be construed as similar in nature. Therefore, improper application of mind of detaining authority is apparent in treating the offences as similar to that of one relied on by them. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶24

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Prasannakumar @ Mohan, Son of Suganantham made in BDFGISSV No.596/2013 dated 03.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Vellore, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar (CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Asst. Registrar.
vri
To
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home),
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City Police,
Commissioner Office,
Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.