Allowed

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC3 Jun 2014HCP/2461/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Habeas Corpus petition challenging detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. Court held that lack of cogent material supporting the authority's belief that the petitioner might obtain bail violated Article 22(5) of the Constitution, necessitating quotation of the detention order. The order was allowed and the detention quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order quashed; petitioner set at liberty forthwith unless custody required for another case.

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim Vs the Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

Dated: 03.06.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2461 of 2013

¶7

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim ... Petitioner

¶8

-vs1. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents

¶10

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 entire records, relating to petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 14.09.2013 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BDFGISSV No.1002/2013 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely, Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim, son of Mohamed Salim, aged 28 years before this Hon'ble High Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now petitioner detained at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai 600 066.

¶11

The petitioner is the detenu herein. He has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2^nd respondent passed in No.1002/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013.

¶12

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

¶13

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

¶14

Sl.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	H-6 R.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.941/2012	307 IPC
2.	E-5 Sholavaram Police Station Crime No.449/2012	302 IPC
3.	B-3 Fort Police Station	341, 294(b), 384 &
	Crime No.93/2013	506(ii) IPC

¶15

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 07.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, B-1, North Beach Police Station in Crime No.693/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 427, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶16

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 likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No.93/2013 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.

¶17

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

¶18

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

¶19

''4. ...The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim are taking action to take him out on bail in B-3 Fort P.S.Cr.No.93/2013 by filing bail application before the appropriate court. ...”

¶20

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.93/2013 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.

¶21

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

¶22

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim made in No.1002/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 14.09.2013 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

Sd/-(17/06/2014)

¶25

Assistant Registrar(CS-II)

¶26

//True Copy// Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶27

abe To: 1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamilnadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.

¶28

1. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai 600 008.

¶29

1. The Superintendent, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.

¶30

1. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai 600 104. nm(co) tshk.19.06.2014

¶31

H.C.P.No.2461 of 2013

¶32

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

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mamu @ Syed Ibrahim 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

Ananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Venkatesan Vs the Secretary to the

R.Govindhammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

S.Rajakumari Vs the Secretary to Government

Saraswathi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

P.Vali Vs the Secretary to the