Allowed

Karuppan@ Chinnathambi v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Mar 2015HCP/108/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the preventive detention order against the petitioner, finding that the detaining authority passed the order based on a mere 'ipse dixit' regarding the likelihood of bail without any cogent materials, violating principles of non-application of mind and due process.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless presence required in other cases.

Karuppan@ Chinnathambi Vs the Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.03.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE K.B.K.VASUKI

¶5

H.C.P.No.108 of 2015

¶6

Karuppan @ Chinnathambi

¶7

...Petitioner/Detenu

¶8

¶9

1.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶10

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District. ...Respondents

¶11

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to direct the detaining authority to produce the detenu Karuppan @ Chinnathambi S/o.Chinnapaiyan, aged about 64 years presently confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore before this court by calling for the records relating to the preventive detention order dated 23.6.2014 in Cr.M.P.No.11/2014/C1 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and set the detenu at liberty.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Govindan For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the detenu, namely, Karuppan @ Chinnathambi, S/o Chinnapaiyan, male, aged 64 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Cr.M.P.No.11/2014/C1 dated 23.06.2014, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,

¶15

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

¶16

Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶17

Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.K.Govindan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

¶18

According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has moved bail application in CMP.No.1583 of 2014 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.2, Gobichettipalayam in connection with Nambiyur Police Station Cr.No.35/2004 registered for the offences under sections 457 and 380 IPC and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, he has moved another bail application in CMP.No.1766 of 2014 and the same is pending. It is further submitted that though the detaining authority has, in para 5 of the detention order stated that in a similar case, bail was granted within the stipulated time, no particulars were given with regard to the case number, offence charged etc. Therefore, no cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail and there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case and the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out in the said case is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] ; [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR] and [d] 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER].

¶19

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶20

We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the

¶21

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

¶22

rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and also perused the impugned order of detention and the materials placed on record.

¶23

As evident from para 5 of the grounds of detention, the detenu is in remand in Cr.No.35 of 2004 and he has filed bail application in the said case and the same was dismissed and thereafter, he has filed another bail application and is pending. The detaining authority further stated therein that in similar cases, the bail was granted within stipulated time. Merely stating that bail was granted in similar cases within stipulated time, without any material particulars, is not sufficient enough to pass an order of detention. Further, there is absolutely no material to show that there is imminent possibility of the detenu to get bail. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case would be a mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention and the same is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and on this ground alone, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the order of detention cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.

¶24

In this connection it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶25

[a]In 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:

¶26

"The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record, in the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is

¶27

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

¶28

not sufficient to sustain the order of detention."

¶29

[b]In 2005 (1) CTC 577 (Velmurugan @ Velu vs. The Commissioner of Police), it has been held as follows:

¶30

"3.......unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining authority shall consider the materials and on the basis of subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, the detaining authority may pass such an order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 2080. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated."

¶31

[c]In 2012 [7] SCC 181 [cited supra] which reads thus:12. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Govt. & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244, this Court while dealing with the issue held :

¶32

“……A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored……

¶33

In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts

¶34

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

¶35

normally grant bail on this ground.”

¶36

14......... Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co- accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."

¶37

[d]In 2008 [3] MLJ (Crl.) 144 [S.ANDAL VS. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MADURAI DISTRICT, MADURAI AND ANOTHER], it has been held as follows:

¶38

"Where a bail application filed by the detenu was pending before the Court and the Detaining Authority coming to the conclusion that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, even prior to the passing of an order on bail application, held the detention order was passed without proper application of mind, rendering it vitiated."

¶39

It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.

¶40

In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶41

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)

¶44

//True Copy//

¶45

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶46

rk
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and
District Magistrate, Erode District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Coimabtore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
1 CC to Mr.K.Govindan, Advocate SR.No. 17147
HCP.No.108 of 2015
VGI (CO)
PSI (17.04.2015)

¶47

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

Karuppan@ Chinnathambi v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karuppan@ Chinnathambi 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Vs the Principal Secretary to

R.Vijayan Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Santha Vs the Secretary to Government

S. Shanthi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Manikandan Vs the Secretary to the

Madhu Alias Periya Madhu Vs the Secretary to the