Allowed

Suganthi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC9 Jun 2014HCP/2247/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Premises Used for Prohibited Activities Act, 1982. The court held the order was passed mechanically without material to support the presumption that bail would be granted and prejudicial to public order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 13.09.2013 is quashed and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.06.2014

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Habeas Corpus Petition No.2247 of 2013

¶5

Suganthi ...Petitioner

¶6

-vs-
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil nadu (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.

¶7

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Collector Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District. ...Respondents

¶8

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 2^nd respondent, pertaining to the detention order made in No.C6/D.O./43/2013 dated 13.09.2013, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu Sathish @ Sathishkumar, S/o.Subbu Naidu @ Kannaiya Naidu, male, aged 35 years, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

The petitioner is the wife of 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.C6/D.O./43/2013 dated 13.09.2013.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	Neyveli Thermal Police	Sections 302, and 302 r/w
	Station, Crime No.18 of 2012	120(B) IPC
2.	Vadalore Police Station,	Sections 147, 148, 294
	Crime No.326 of 2013	(b), 323, 324, 341, 506 (ii) and 307 IPC

¶13

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Vadalur Police Station in Crime No.406 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 506 (ii), 324, 307 and 392 IPC and Section 3(1) of TNPPD Act, 1992. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶14

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has 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. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶15

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

¶16

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 is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.5 of the order:

¶17

“5.... Further the Sponsoring Authority has brought to my knowledge that detenu's relative take steps to file another bail application before the competent court.”

¶18

A close reading of the entire booklet, it is noticed that the detaining authority has taken a decision on 13.09.2013 to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out by filing application in respect of Crime No.406 of 2013, ground cases, without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which shows clear non application of mind on the

¶19

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

¶20

part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶21

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Sathish @ Sathishkumar, S/o.Subbu Naidu @ Kannaiya Naidu, made in No.C6/D.O./43/2013 dated 13.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Cuddalore is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶22

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude authorities concerned 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.

¶23

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CO)
Dated: 13.06.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Government of Tamil nadu (Home),
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Collector Office, Cuddalore, Cuddalore District.
3. The Superintendent.
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order), Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
1 CC to Mr.C. Prasannan Venkatesh, Advocate SR.No.23646
Habeas Corpus Petition No.2247 of 2013
TAD(CO)PSI (13.06.2014)

¶24

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

Suganthi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suganthi v. the Secretary to Government

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

Uthiravel @ Ukkiravel Vs the Inspector of Police

Vs

Dhanam Vs the State of Tamilnadu

P.Rani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mumtaj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Manavaruthal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu