Allowed

Kalpana v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC19 Jun 2014HCP/3147/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The court quashed the order issued against petitioner's husband, Anandan, finding it was passed mechanically without material to support the presumption that bail would be granted, violating principles of natural justice.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is quashed and the detenu, Anandan, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required for any other case.

Kalpana Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶7

H.C.P. No.3147 of 2013

¶8

Kalpana .. Petitioner

¶9

Vs.

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary,

¶11

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Egmore, Chennai - 8. .. Respondents

¶13

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.1654/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 18.11.2013 passed by the second respondent under the Tamilnadu Act, 14 of 1982, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, the detenu Anandan, S/o. Bose, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Sugendran

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.P.Govindarajan,

¶16

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

¶18

ORDER

¶19

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

¶20

The petitioner is the wife 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 Memo No.1654/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 18.11.2013.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	M-6, Manali Police Station, Crime No.945 of 2013	379, 392, 397, 411 r/w. 511 and 120(b) IPC
2.	M-6, Manali Police Station, Crime No.959 of 2013	341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397 and 506 (ii) IPC
3.	M-5, Ennore Police Station, Crime No.2406 of 2013	341 and 307 IPC
4.	M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1010 of 2013	147, 341, 294(b), 323 and 506(ii) IPC
5.	M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1117 of 2013	341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397 and 506 (ii) IPC
6.	M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1602 of 2013	397 IPC
7.	M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1615 of 2013	392 IPC
8.	M-8, Sathangadu Police Station, Crime No.1625/2013	392 IPC

¶24

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.09.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Crime, M-8, Sathangadu Police Station in Crime No.1632 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w. 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶25

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he 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.

¶26

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

¶27

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, has passed the impugned

¶28

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

¶29

detention order, wherein it has been mentioned as under in paragraph No.4 of the order:

¶30

“4.I am aware that Thiru.Anandan is in remand in M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime Nos.1010/2013, 1117/2013, 1602/2013, 1615/2013, 1625/2013 and 1632/2013 and he has not moved any bail applications for the above cases so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Anandan are taking action to take him on bail in M-8, Sathangadu Police Station Crime Nos.1010/2013, 1117/2013, 1602/2013, 1615/2013, 1625/2013 and 1632/2013 by filing bail application before the court.....

¶31

A close reading of the entire booklet would show that the detaining authority has taken a decision 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 Nos.1010/2013, 1117/2013, 1602/2013, 1615/2013, 1625/2013 and 1632/2013 [fourth, fifth, sixth seventh and eighth adverse cases and ground case] without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which shows clear nonapplication of mind on the part of detaining authority in arriving at such conclusion. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶32

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Anandan, S/o. Bose, made in Memo No.1654/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 18.11.2013 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.

¶33

jrl

¶34

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

¶35

To
1.The Secretary,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
The Commissioner Office,
Egmore, Chennai - 8.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order)
Fort. St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
HCP No.3147 of 2013
jsv(co)
gkg.16.7.2014

¶36

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

Kalpana v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kalpana v. 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

Tmt.M.Sangeetha Vs the Superintendent of Police

Sapthar Hussain Vs the Secretary to Government

Thiru.Gopal Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

K.Lakshmi Vs Secretary

Thiru.Senthil@ Senthil Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Murugan Vs the State of Tamil Nadu