Allowed

Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Jun 2015HCP/307/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Habeas Corpus petition, the Court set aside an impugned detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 because the detention authority relied on a bail application from a similar case that was not supplied to the detenu. The Court held this omission vitiates the order under Article 22(5) of the Constitution.

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 connection with any other case.

Saravanan Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 29.06.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.307/2015

¶7

Saravanan ..
Petitioner
Vs
1.The Secretary to the Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Vellore District, Vellore-9. ..
Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the entire records relating to petitioner's brother detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 12.01.2015 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein made in proceedings C3.D.O.No.5/2015, and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's brother namely Krishnan, son of Sivalingam, aged 30 years, before this Court and set the petitioner's brother at liberty from detention, now petitioner's brother detained at Central Prison, Vellore.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja

¶10

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in No. C3.D.O.No.5/2015 dated 12.01.2015, whereby the detenu/brother the petitioner herein, by name, Krishnan, son of Sivalingam, 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 "BOOTLEGGER”.

¶13

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Mr.C.C.Chellappan, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

¶14

assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply 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.

¶15

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 in similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.

¶16

4.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.

¶17

5.It is seen from paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused Kalidoss was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Vellore in Crl.MP.No.4304/2014 in respect of the case in Cr.No.31/2014 for the offences u/s.4[1][i], 4[1][aaa], 4[1-A][ii] TNP Act r/w 328 IPC on the file of Rathinagiri Police Station. 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 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 in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

¶18

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

¶19

“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

¶20

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

¶21

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).”

¶22

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.

¶23

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 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.

¶24

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.
10. 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.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1.The Secretary to the Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Vellore District, Vellore-9.
3. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Joint Secretary to government,
Public (L&O) Fort St.George, chennai.
Mp(co)
krd 15/7 HCP.No.307/2015
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Saravanan v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Saravanan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lakshmi Vs State Rep by

Mrs.Jothi Vs the Superintendent of Police

G.Radha Vs the Inspector of Police

Devi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Santhi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mohan Vs State Rep by Secretary to