Allowed

A.Damodaran v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC3 Feb 2015HCP/2623/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The court held that the failure to supply copies of bail applications in similar cases to the detenu vitiated the detention order by denying the right to make an effective representation under Article 22(5).

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.

A.Damodaran Vs the Commissioner of Police — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 03.02.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.2623 of 2014
A.Damodaran ..Petitioner
Vs
1.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
2.The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600009
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066. ..Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the first respondent culminating with the order of detention bearing reference Memo No.1003/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 19.08.2014 passed by the 1^st respondent herein 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 14/1982), read with orders issued by the government in G.O.(D). No.143, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) department dated 18^th July, 20914 udner Sub-section (2) of section 3 of said Act and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the person of the detenu, Saravanan, male, aged 27 years, S/o Dhamodaran, before this Court, now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and thereby set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Vel

¶10

For Respondents : Mr.C.Emalias,

¶11

Additional Public Prosecutor .

¶12

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

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Saravanan, S/o Dhamodaran, aged 27 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1003/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 19.08.2014, passed by the 1^st 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 Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶15

Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.S.Senthil Vel,the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in similar cases, 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.

¶16

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 submitted that the copy of the bail applications in similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.

¶17

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.

¶18

It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, the accused were released on bail by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.5228/2013 in respect of Crime No.1434/2013 on the file of F-3 Nungambakkam Police Station for the offence under sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC and TNPPDL Act and by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.5410/2013 in respect of Crime No.196/2013 on the file of N-1 Royapuram Police station for the offence under sections 341, 323, 336, 427, 385, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the

¶19

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

¶20

said bail applications in similar cases. The said bail applications filed in similar cases 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, those 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 applications in similar cases to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

¶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 copy of the bail applications in similar cases, to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the impugned detention order. Further, due to nonsupply 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

¶27

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

¶28

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.

¶29

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶30

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vsi
To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai, Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
2. The Secretary to Government,
Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600009
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal,Chennai – 600 066.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order)
Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶31

HCP.No.2623 of 2014 gp(co) pmk.18.2.2015

¶32

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

A.Damodaran v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A.Damodaran v. the Commissioner of Police

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

Geetha Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Manimegalai Vs the Secretary to the

Sumathi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Bharanitharan Vs State Repreented by

A.Ramalingam Vs the Commissioner of Police

Karthick@ Gujili Karthick Vs the State Government