Allowed

Ajith Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC2 Feb 2015HCP/2263/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed this Habeas Corpus petition filed by the son of a detenue. The Court held that the non-supply of the copy of a bail application filed in a similar case to the detenu vitiated the detention order. This failure denied the detenu the right to effective representation, rendering the detention illegal. The detention order was quashed, and the detenu was directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenue is directed to be released forthwith.

Ajith Kumar Vs the Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 02.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.2263 of 2014
Ajith Kumar ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600009
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate (In charge)
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam. ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in C.O.C.No.43/2014 dated 18.08.2014 against the petitioner's mother, Parimala, Wife of Ravi, male, aged 35 years, who is detained at Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and set her at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias, Additional Public Prosecutor . ORDER

¶10

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the son of the detenue, namely, Parimala, aged 35 years, Wife of Ravi, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.O.C.No.43/2014 dated 18.08.2014, 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, Sand Offenders, Slum

¶11

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

¶12

Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Bootlegger", in the Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirappalli, to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenue and set her at liberty forthwith.

¶13

Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail application in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.

¶14

Per contra, Mr.C.Emalias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he has not refuted that the copy of the bail application in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.

¶15

We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.

¶16

It is seen from paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused was released on bail on 15.05.2013 by the learned District Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam in Crl.M.P.No.1030/2013 in respect of Crime No.211/2013 on the file of Velippalayam Police Station for the offence under sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w 4(1-A) of TNP Act, 1937. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the said bail application in similar case. The said bail application filed in similar case was a document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenue was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such a document has not been supplied to the detenue, as it did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail application in similar case to the detenue would vitiate the impugned detention order.

¶17

The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:-

¶18

“7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for

¶19

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

¶20

consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case.” (Emphasis added).”

¶21

This Court in Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18) relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra has held that non supply of the copy of the bail application in similar case to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the order or detention.

¶22

As already analysed by us, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-supply of the copy of the bail application in similar case, to the detenue has the effect of vitiating the impugned detention order. Further, due to non-supply of such a vital document, the detenue has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶28

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

¶29

vsi

¶30

¶31

1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600009
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate (In charge)
Nagapattinam District,
Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Tiruchirapalli
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order)
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
1 cc to Mr.O.S.Thilak Pasumbadiyar ,Advocate, SR.No.5809
HCP.No.2263 of 2014
msm(co)
pmk.25.2.2015

¶32

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

Ajith Kumar v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajith Kumar 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

G.Anandhan Vs Rangarajan

Nagavalli Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Devaraj Vs State of Tamil Nadu

P.Vijayakannan Vs Inspector of Police

K.Mohammed Rafik Vs the Director General of Police

Dhanalakshmi Vs the Secretary to the