The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition by husband, quashing a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
The impugned detention order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.04.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN
H.C.P.No.3693/2014
R.Syedali Fathima .. Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamilnadu
Rep. by the Secretary to Government
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police, Chennai. .. Respondents
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 the Detention Order passed in BCDFGISSV No.1832/2014, dated 15.11.2014 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of petitioner's husband viz., Ajees @ Raghubasha, aged about 24 years, S/o.Sherif, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
(Order of the Court is made by S.TAMILVANAN,J)
Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide the proceedings in BCDFGISSV No.1832/2014, dated 15.11.2014, whereby the detenu/the petitioner's husband, by name, viz., Ajees @ Raghubasha, aged about 24 years, S/o.Sherif, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral
Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.L.Baskaran, 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 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.
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 the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.
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.
5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.2392 of 2012, in respect of the case in Cr.No.1960 of 2012 for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506 (ii) IPC, on the file of T-1 Ambattur 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 was the document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such document has 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.
6.The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:-
“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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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).”
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 non-supply of such a vital document, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.
Sd/Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
paa
To
1.The Secretary to Government
State of Tamilnadu
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police, Chennai.
Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
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.L.Baskaran ,Advocate, SR.No.23777
H.C.P.No.3693/2014
tej(co)
pmk.21.5.2015
3 issues framed by the court
Whether non-supply of the copy of a bail application in a similar case to a detainee vitiates a detention order under Article 22(5).
Whether the detaining authority was deprived of a vital material required for effective representation.
Whether the detention order should be quashed and the detainee released due to procedural lapse.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of IndiaRelied on¶16
M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) · Who else cites this
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil NaduRelied on¶18
Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
R.Syedali Fathima
State of Tamilnadu
The Commissioner of Police
S.TAMILVANAN
B.RAJENDRAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
