Allowed

Kesavaramanujam v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC14 Jun 2014HCP/2229/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order against a 'Goonda' detainee. The court held that the detaining authority relied on unsubstantiated claims regarding bail applications by relatives, as the special report lacked supporting material on this specific point.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order quashed; detenu Gopal set at liberty forthwith unless custody required for other cases.

Kesavaramanujam Vs the Secretary to the — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

H.C.P. No.2229 of 2013

¶7

Kesavaramanujam .. Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

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

¶10

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. .. Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 14.09.2013 in BDFGISSV No.996/BDFGISSV/2013 against the brother of the petitioner Gopal, M/A. 41, son of Kesavaramanujam, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶14

ORDER

¶15

(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.)

¶16

The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in No.996/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013.

¶17

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶18

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

¶19

Sl.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	G1, Vepery Police Station,	302 IPC
	Crime No.371 of 2013
2.	G-2 Periyamedu Police Station	341, 294(b), 385 & 506
	Crime No.753 of 2013	(ii) IPC

¶20

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 08.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, G2, Periyamedu Police Station in Crime No.759 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 307, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶21

3.Amidst several grounds raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. Learned counsel has further submitted that in the special report, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything about the steps taken by the relatives to take the detenu on bail. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶22

4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu is involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order.

¶23

5.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same being prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order:

¶24

“4.I am aware that Thiru.Gopal is in remand in G2 Periyamedu Police Station Cr.Nos.753/2013 and 759/2013 and he has moved a bail application for G2 Periyamedu Police Station Cr.No.759/2013 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M .P.No.11689/2013 and same is pending. He has not moved any bail application for G2 Periyamedu Police Station Cr.No.753/2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Tr.Gopal are taking action to take him on bail in G2 Periyamedu Police Station Cr.No.753/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court......“

¶25

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

¶26

6.From a reading of the aforesaid order, it is clear that the detenu has not moved a bail petition for G2 Periyamedu Police Station Crime No.753 of 2013 (second adverse case). When that being so, the detaining authority, based on the statement of the sponsoring authority to the effect that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take the detenu on bail in the second adverse case, has arrived at the satisfaction that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case by filing bail application and clamped the detention order. But, in the special report found at Page No.367 of the booklet, the sponsoring authority has not stated anything in this regard. Thus, it is clear that the detaining authority, without considering the same, has passed the impugned detention order without any supporting material and the same is, therefore, vitiated.

¶27

7.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Gopal, made in No.996/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶28

8.However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) Dated: 21.07.2014

¶30

//True Copy//

¶31

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶32

mmi To

¶33

1.The Secretary to Government,

¶34

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶35

2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai.

¶36

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

¶37

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶38

4.The Joint Secretary to Government,

¶39

Public (Law and Order) Fort St.George,Chenai-9.

¶40

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶41

RSY(CO) km/22.7.

¶42

HCP No.2229 of 2013

¶43

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

Kesavaramanujam v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kesavaramanujam v. the Secretary to the

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

J.Arulanandaraj Vs the Joint Secretary

Padma Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Devi Vs the Governemtn of Tamil Nadu

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karthik Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kaleem Vs the Secretary to the