Quashed

Mariyamma v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC16 Jun 2014HCP/2332/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Madras, in a writ petition for Habeas Corpus, quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The court held that the detention authority relied on insufficient material to claim a real possibility of bail, thereby infringing Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 29.07.2013 was quashed and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.

Mariyamma Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 16.06.2014

¶3

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM H.C.P.No.2332 of 2013

¶4

I.Mariyamma ... Petitioner -vs-

¶5

The State of Tamilnadu
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents

¶6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the 2^nd respondent pertaining to the order made in Memo No.541/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.07.2013 in detaining the detenu under 2(f) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu I.Lawrance, S/o.Irudhayaraj, male, aged about 41 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

(Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in No.541/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.07.2013.

¶8

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

¶9

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

¶10

Sl.No.	Police Station	and Crime No. Sections of Law
1.	S-5 Pallavaram Crime No.3998/201	Police Station, 2 147, 363 @ 147, 148, 363, 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC
2.	S-5 Pallavaram Crime No.298/2013	Police Station 294(b), 384, 506(ii) IPC
3.	S-5 Pallavaram Crime No.386/2013	Police Station 341, 294(b), 392 r/w 397, 427, 336, 506 (ii) IPC

¶11

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-5 Pallavaram Police Station, Crime No.845/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392 r/w 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶12

Besides several grounds to assail the order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his arguments on the ground that though the detaining authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.845/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, there is no cogent material to support the decision of the detaining authority and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶13

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission. 5. For better appreciation of the case, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder: ''4. ... I am also aware that Thiru.Lawrance who was remanded in S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime No.845/2013 has filed bail petition in S-5 Pallavaram Police Station 845/2013 before the Principal District Sessions Judge at Chengalpattu vide Crl.M.P.Nos.2888/2013 and the same is pending. In a similar case registered at M-8 Sathangadu P.S. Cr.No.272/2011 u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Kanagasabapthy @ Pradeep and Raman by the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P.No.15963/2011 on 13.07.2011. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of him coming out on bail in S-5, Pallavaram Police Station Cr.No.845/2013 and there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application for S-5, Pallavaram P.S.Cr.No.845/2013 before the appropriate Court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of

¶14

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

¶15

time. ...”

¶16

A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to bail out the detenu in Crime No.845/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. It is true that the detaining authority is empowered to take a decision if there is material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. But, on verification of the material documents, it is seen that no cogent material is available to support the decision of the detaining authority. The same, which amounts to infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Lawrance made in No.541/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 29.07.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶18

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the 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. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 08.07.2014 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai 600 008. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶19

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

¶20

The Joint Secretary to Government

¶21

Public (Law & Order) Dept.,

¶22

Fort St George, Chennai - 9.

¶23

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras,

¶24

Chennai 600 104.

¶25

H.C.P.No.2332 of 2013

¶26

SU(CO) JJM (09.07.2014)

¶27

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

Mariyamma v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mariyamma v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Karthik Vs the Commissioner of Police

Kaleem Vs the Secretary to the

T.v.Sashindran Vs the Commissioner of Police

C.Gokulakrishnan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Usha Vs the Secretary to the