Allowed

Dayalan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC10 Jun 2014HCP/2447/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court quashed a detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 regarding a person branded as a 'Goonda'. The Court held that the detaining authority erred in issuing the order by stating there was a possibility of bail in a ground case pending before the High Court itself, concluding the order was without application of mind.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is quashed and the Habeas Corpus petition is allowed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith.

Dayalan Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 10.06.2014

¶3

CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
H.C.P.No.2447 of 2013
Dayalan ...Petitioner
-vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented
by Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore. ...Respondents
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for
the records relating to the Detention Order passed by the second
respondent pertaining to the order made in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated
08.10.2013, in detaining the detenu under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu
Act 14 of 1982, as a Goonda and quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the detenu Nanda @ Nandakumar, S/o.Kuppan,
male, aged 30 years, who is detained at Central Prison, Vellore
before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶4

For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar For Respondents : Mr.P.Govindarajan Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by V.Dhanapalan,J.)

¶5

The petitioner is the friend of the detenu. The detenu Nanda @ Nandakumar has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2^nd respondent passed in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated 08.10.2013.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

Sl.No.	Police Station and Cri	me No.	Sections of Law
1.	Sholinghur Police Crime No.374/2012	Station	294(b), 324, 506(ii) IPC
2.	Sholinghur Police Crime No.488/2013	Station	393 IPC
3.	Arakkonam Town Police Crime No.1420/2013	Station	341, 392, 506(ii) IPC
4.	Nemili Police Crime No.255/2013	Station	392 IPC

¶9

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 16.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Arakkonam Town Police Station in Crime No.1451/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 392, 394, 397, 427, 506(ii) IPC.

¶10

Besides several grounds, learned for the petitioner would contend that when the detaining authority has stated about the pendency of the bail application in the ground case in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013, his inference that the detenu will come out on bail by filing bail application in the said case before the higher court, is without application of mind and therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶11

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

¶12

For better understanding, relevant portion of the detention order is extracted hereunder:

¶13

''5. ... I am aware that Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar has moved bail application in adverse case Cr.No.1420/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam in C.M.P.No.4533/2013 and it was dismissed on 23.09.2013. Further, he has moved bail application in adverse case Cr.No.1420/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Arakkonam in C.M.P.No.4974/2013 and he was granted bail on 30.09.2013. Further, Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar has filed bail application in ground case Crime No.1451/2013 before the Sessions Court, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.4042/2013 and the same was dismissed on 30.09.2013. Further, Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar filed another bail application in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013

¶14

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

¶15

before Hon'ble High Court of Madras in ground case and the same is pending. As far as the ground case is concerned, in a similar case registered at Sathuvachari Police Station Crime No.345/2012 under Sections 294(b), 341, 323, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Thiru Batchi @ Jaishankar by the Honourable High Court, Madras in Crl.O.P.No.11286/2012 on 25.05.2012. As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is real possibility of his (Thiru.Nanda @ Nandakumar) coming out on bail, by filing bail application in the above case before the higher court in the court.

¶16

On a careful reading of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has stated that the detenu has filed another bail application in the ground case in Crl.O.P.No.25729/2013 before this Court and the same is pending. While so, the inference drawn by him that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application in the above case before the higher court is without application of mind. When there is a bail application already pending before this Court in the ground case, the detaining authority has mechanically averred that there is a possibility for the detenu to come out on bail by filing a bail application, on which ground, the impugned detention order is vitiated in law.

¶17

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Nanda @ Nandakumar made in C3.D.O.No.91/2013 dated 08.10.2013 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

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-II) Dated: 30.06.2014

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

abe

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Collector and
District Magistrate,
Vellore District, Vellore.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Vellore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu,
Public (Law & Order) Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2447 OF 2013
RV (CO)
PSI (01.07.2014)

¶24

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

Dayalan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dayalan 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

P.Rani Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mumtaj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Suganthi Vs the Secretary to Government

S.Kothai, W/O.Sundhakar, Vs State by Inspector of Police

Mrs.J.Hadhiya Fathima Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Sangeetha Vs the Secretary to Government