Allowed

Palaniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC16 Oct 2015HCP/2356/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition, the Madras High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court held that the non-supply of the bail application and bail order from a similar case to the detenu vitiated the order, denying the detenu an effective representation under Article 22(5), and thus directed his release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

Palaniyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 16.10.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.2356/2015

¶7

Palaniyammal .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Egmore,
Vepery, Chennai. .. 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 dated 17.04.2015 passed by the second respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.321/2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son Thaniga @ Thanigavel, son of Allimuthu, aged 30 years, No.22, Thiruneermalai Road, Anagaputthur, Chennai 600 070, presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Puzhal, 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-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Murali

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

ORDER

¶13

(Order of the Court made by S.TAMILVANAN,J.)

¶14

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide BCDFGISSSV No.321/2015 dated 17.04.2015, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Thaniga @ https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶15

Thanigavel, son of Allimuthu, aged 30 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

¶16

Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.Murali, 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 and the bail order in the 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.

¶17

3 .Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, 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 submitted that the copy of the bail application and the bail order in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused was released on bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.13843/2009 in respect of the case in Crime No.301/2009 for the offences u/s.147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC on the file of R-7 K.K.Nagar Police Station. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain any of the documents, viz., the bail application as well as the bail order copy, in respect of the similar case. The said bail application and the copy of the bail order filed in similar case were the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such documents have not been supplied to the detenu, as it did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail application and other documents in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order. This order is made only towards setting aside the order of detention passed against the detenu herein. Any bail application moved by the detenu in the ground case or in the adverse cases, necessarily would have to be considered by the Court concerned solely on merits, un-influenced by this order.

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Vga

¶28

Sd/-

¶29

Assistant Registrar (CS-II)

¶30

/True Copy/

¶31

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶32

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

¶33

To
1. The Secretary,
The State of Tamilnadu,
Prohibition & Excise Department
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section), Egmore,
Vepery, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public Law & Order,
Fort St.Georgy,
Chennai – 600 009
HCP.No.2356/2015
VSN(CO)
sd : 04/11/2015

¶34

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

Palaniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Palaniyammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

K.Suresh Vs the Inspector of Police

Murugesan Vs the Inspector of Police

Thavamani Vs State by

Kalpana Vs the Commissioner of Police

Mrs.M.Saradha Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Rafiq @ Mohammed Rafiq Vs State of Tamil Nadu