Allowed

Tmt.Thilagavathy v. State Rep by

Madras HC27 Apr 2015HCP/351/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the order, and directed release due to the violation of Article 22(5) caused by the non-supply of a vital bail application copy from a similar case to the detenu.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

Tmt.Thilagavathy Vs State Rep by — Quashing and FIR | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 27.04.2015

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.351/2015

¶7

Tmt Thilagavathy .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai. .. Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas corpus calling for the records in D.O.No.06/2015-C2 dated 26.01.2015 passed by the 2^nd respondent, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Anandan, son of Pakkiri @ Kumar, aged 37 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Vellore-2 before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja, APP ORDER

¶10

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in D.O.No.06/2015-C2 dated 26.01.2015, whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Anandan, son of Pakkiri @ Kumar, aged 37 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”.

¶11

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

¶12

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.S.Swamidoss Manokaran, 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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

5.It is seen from paragraph No.5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused Thasarathan was released on bail by the learned District Sessions Judge, Tiruvannamalai in Crl.MP.No.6071/2014 in respect of the case in Cr.No.3918/2011 for the offence u/s.4[1][i], 4[1][aaa] r/w 4[1-A] [ii] TNP Act on the file of Vettavalam 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.

¶16

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

¶17

“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

¶18

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

¶19

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).”

¶20

7.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.

¶21

8.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 nonsupply of such a vital document, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.

¶22

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.

¶23

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.

¶24

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

1.The Secretary to the Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector & District Magistrate
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
3.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Vellore.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law and order)
Fort St. George, Chennai-9
HCP.No.351/2015
SSI (CO)
kk 18/5

¶28

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

Tmt.Thilagavathy v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Thilagavathy v. State Rep by

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

Tmt.Amina Bivi Vs the Secretary to the

Vasanthi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Malliga Vs the Secretary to Government