Allowed

Tmt.Amina Bivi v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC27 Apr 2015HCP/3797/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

HC allowed the petitioner's habeas corpus petition, quashing the detention order against the petitioner's son due to non-supply of crucial bail documents from a similar case, which vitiated the authority's subjective satisfaction and violated constitutional rights.

What did the court decide?

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

Tmt.Amina Bivi Vs the Secretary to the — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.3797/2014

¶8

Tmt Amina Bivi ...Petitioner

¶9

Vs
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police, O/o.,The Commissioner
of Police, [Goondas Section]
Egmore, Chennai 600 008. ...Respondents

¶10

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 01.11.2014 in Memo No.1669/BDFGISSV/2014 against the petitioner's son Mohamed Ithiriyas, son of Abdul Khadar, aged about 26 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

ORDER

¶12

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.1669/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 01.11.2014, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner herein, by name, Mohamed Ithiriyas, son of Abdul Khadar, aged about 26 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,

¶13

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

¶14

Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a “Goonda”.

¶15

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.V.Paarthiban, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply 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.

¶16

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 were not supplied to the detenu.

¶17

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.

¶18

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, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.10992/2011 for the offences u/s.341, 294[b], 336, 307, 397 and 506[ii] IPC in Cr.No.1640/2011 on the file of V5 Thirumangalam Police Station. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the document, viz., the bail application, in respect of the 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 and other documents in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

¶19

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

¶20

“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

¶21

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

¶22

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/bail order copy 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 document, viz., bail order etc., 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.

¶25

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.

¶26

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.

¶27

Sd/-

¶28

Assistant Registrar(LA)

¶29

//True Copy//

¶30

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶31

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

¶32

AP
To
1. The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police
Chennai Police, O/o.,The Commissioner
of Police, [Goondas Section]
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.
5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.
HCP.No.3797/2014
PA (CO)
PSI(15.05.2015)

¶33

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

Tmt.Amina Bivi v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tmt.Amina Bivi v. the Secretary to the

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

Vasanthi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Malliga Vs the Secretary to Government

Ramesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu