Allowed

Devi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC29 Jun 2015HCP/3771/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a habeas corpus petition, the High Court set aside a detention order under the TN Pre-Goonda Act. The Court held that the non-supply of bail applications from analogous cases relied upon by the authority to justify detention denied the detenu an effective representation under Article 22(5), thereby vitiating the order.

What did the court decide?

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

Devi Vs the 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 THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.3771/2014

¶6

Devi ...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Inspector of Police
S4 Nandambakkam Police Station
Chennai. ...Respondents

¶7

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 relating to the impugned order in BDFGISSV No.2089/2014 dated 07.12.2014 on the file of the 2^nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Mannar @ Immanuvel @ Manickam @ Malarmannan, son of Karnan, aged about 52 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in BDFGISSV No.2089/2014 dated 07.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Mannar @ Immanuvel @ Manickam @ Malarmannan, son

¶9

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

¶10

of Karnan, aged about 52 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".

¶11

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply of copy of the bail applications in the 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.

¶12

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 applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.

¶13

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.

¶14

5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, viz., [a] the accused was released on bail by the learned V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai, in Crl.MP.Nos.1258 & 1677/2012 for the offence u/s.457, 380 IPC in Cr.No.1041/2011 on the file of P3 Vyasarpadi Police Station ; [b] the accused was released on bail by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.593/2009 in respect of the case in Crime No.26/2009 for the offence u/s.379 IPC on the file of the R1 Mambalam Police Station ; and [c] the accused was released on bail by the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Thiruvallur in Crl.MP.No.2392/2012 in respect of the case in Cr.No.1960/2012 for the offences u/s.341, 294[b], 336, 427, 392, 397 and 506[ii] IPC, on the file of T1 Ambattur Police Station respectively. 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 applications, in respect of the similar cases ; but the respective bail orders of the said similar cases [both in English version and in vernacular version] have been furnished in page Nos.215 to 226 of the Booklet. 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

¶15

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

¶16

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 applications and other documents in similar cases to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

¶17

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

¶18

“7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail applications 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).”

¶19

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 applications in similar cases to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the order or detention.

¶20

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

¶21

9.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.

¶22

In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order is set aside. The detenu

¶23

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

¶24

is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶25

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶26

//True Copy//

¶27

Sub Assistant Registrar
AP
To
1. The Secretary to Government
State of Tamil Nadu
Prohibition & Excise Department [Home]
Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai City Police, Commissioner Office
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Inspector of Police
S4 Nandambakkam Police Station
Chennai.
4. The Superintendent of Central Prison
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
6. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.
HCP.No.3771/2014
SK [CO]
PSI 10.07.2015

¶28

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

Devi v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devi v. the 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

Santhi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Mohan Vs State Rep by Secretary to

Mrs.Shoba Vs the State of Tamil Nadu