Allowed

Khushruba v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC19 Mar 2019HCP/300/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court issued a common order dismissing the writ petitions on merits, allowing the three Habeas Corpus petitions filed by Khushruba to quash detention orders against Firose Ali Syed, Shakith Ali, and Sabeer Ali. The Court set aside the orders due to total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority.

What did the court decide?

Detention orders dated 13.04.2018 were set aside, detenus Firose Ali Syed, Shakith Ali, and Sabeer Ali were directed to be released forthwith.

Khushruba Vs the Secretary to Government — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 19.03.2019

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶5

H.C.P.Nos.300, 301 & 302 of 2019

¶6

Khushruba ... Petitioner in all HCPs Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police Detaining Authority Coimbatore City. .. Respondents in all HCPs

¶7

Prayer in HCP No.300 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to petitioner's friend's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 13.04.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.40/G/IS/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's friend Firose Ali Syed, son of Nazeer Ali, aged 36 years before this Court and set the petitioner friend at liberty from detention, now petitioner friend detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶8

Prayer in HCP No.301 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to petitioner's friend's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 13.04.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.42/G/IS/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's friend namely Shakith Ali, son of Sarfaraz Shnnaasri, aged 28 years before this Court and set the petitioner friend at liberty from

¶9

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

¶10

detention, now petitioner friend detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶11

Prayer in HCP No.302 of 2019: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to petitioner's friend's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 13.04.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.41/G/IS/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's friend namely Sabeer Ali, son of Usthath Ali, aged 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner friend at liberty from detention, now petitioner friend detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶12

For Petitioner .. Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶13

For Respondents.. Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J)

¶14

The detenus in these Habeas Corpus Petitions are the accused and since the grounds agitated by the petitioner is one and the same, these petitions are disposed of by a common order. In all these Habeas Corpus Petitions, Mrs.Khushruba, claiming to be the friend of the detenues, came forward to file these petitions, challenging the impugned orders of detention, passed by the second respondent, in branding the detenus as “Goondas” under the provisions of Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

¶15

A perusal of the grounds of detention in all the impugned orders would disclose among other things that all the detenus came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶16

Sl No.	Name of the Police station and Crime No.	Section of law
1	Coimbatore City, B-2 R.S.Puram Police Station (Cr.No.1066/2017)	170, 420 IPC
2	Coimbatore City, E-3 Saravanampatty Police Station (Cr.No.816/2017)	420 IPC

¶17

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

¶18

3	Coimbatore City, D-1	420 IPC
	Ramanathapuram Police
	Station
	(Cr.No.9/2018)
4	Coimbatore City, B-2	420 IPC
	R.S.Puram Police Station
	(Cr.No.101/2018)

¶19

It is averred in the grounds of detention that at 14.00 hours, the defacto complainant, namely B.Ramesh Kumar appeared before the B-3 Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore City and lodged a complaint stating that, on 31.01.2018 at about 12.15 hours, while he was proceeding in his two wheeler near “Best Bakery”, Salivan Street, Coimbatore, two persons, who later ascertained as Yasar Ali and Dhagi Ali came in two motorcycles and attempted to snatch the gold chain from the complainant and when it was resisted, they brandished knife, and in the meantime the detenus herein came in a car and all of them threatened the complaint at knife point and snatched his gold chain and when public made attempts to apprehend them, they threatened them with dire consequences and fled away from the scene of occurrence. The Inspector of Police registered a case in Crime No.155/2018 on the file of B-3, Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore City, for the commission of offences under Sections 395 r/w. 397 IPC [ground case] and took up the case for investigation.

¶20

All the detenus were arrested on 01.02.2018 and they voluntarily came forward to give confession statements and based on the admissible portions of the confession statements, incriminating articles were seized. The detenus were produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore on 02.2.2018, and the accused were ordered to be remanded to judicial custody till 15.02.2018 in Central Prison, Coimbatore and their remand period was periodically extended and stands posted on 16.04.2018.

¶21

The Detaining Authority, on the basis of the materials placed, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the the activities of the detenus are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, branded the detenus as ''Goondas'' and clamped the impugned orders of detention against the detenus and challenging the legality of the same, the present habeas corpus petitions are filed.

¶22

The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that in respect of first and fourth adverse cases, no bail applications have been filed by the detenus and insofar as the second adverse case is concerned, bail applications have been

¶23

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

¶24

filed by the detenus and the same are pending, and insofar as the third adverse cases are concerned, the bail applications filed by the detenus were dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No.8 of the detention order, wherein it is stated that the bail applications are pending in respect of second adverse case and the Detaining Authority has observed that the third adverse case which has been filed under similar sections of law, bail was granted to the co-accused A.Dhagi Ali @ Dhagi, whereas bail was rejected to the detenus, and and relying on the same, the Detaining Authority had derived the subjective satisfaction that there is a very likelihood of the detenus filing bail applications before the higher Courts in the ground case, even after lapse of time, and on coming out on bail in the ground case, there is a real possibility that the detenus would indulge in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. However, in the process of passing the detention orders, the Detaining Authority failed to take note of the fact that the bail applications filed in respect of second adverse case are still pending and that too, it was registered under similar section of law as in third adverse case, where bail was rejected by the Court concerned, and this proves the nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in deriving the subjective satisfaction, and prays for quashment of the impugned orders of detention.

¶25

Per contra, Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly clamped the orders of detention and prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶26

This Court has carefully considered the rival submissions and also perused the materials placed before it.

¶27

A perusal of paragraph No.8(ii) of the impugned detention orders would disclose that the bail applications filed by the detenus, concerning the second adverse case, are still pending and offences committed are similar to the third adverse case, where bail has been rejected to the detenus, and the Detaining Authority has derived the subjective satisfaction, that if the detenus are released on bail, there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenus indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public peace and order, and has also placed reliance that, on the pretext of bail granted to the co-accused A.Dhagi Ali @ Dhagi, he would approach the higher Courts for his release on bail. The Detaining Authority, in the ground case, has erroneously observed that the detenus are likely to file bail applications, overlooking the fact that the bail applications, that were filed by the detenus

¶28

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

¶29

in the second adverse case are still pending.

¶30

In the considered opinion of the Court, the infirmities found in the Detention Orders would exhibit total nonapplication of the mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and materials placed before this Court would prove that the subjective satisfaction derived by the Detaining Authority is liable to be vitiated on this sole ground and therefore, the orders of detention warrants interference.

¶31

In the result, these Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed and the detention orders passed by the second respondent dated 13.04.2018 in proceeding Nos. C.No.40/G/IS/2018, C.No.42/G/IS/2018 and C.No.41/G/IS/2018 respectively are hereby set aside. The detenues, namely,(i) Firose Ali Syed, son of Nazeer Ali, aged 36 years (ii) Shakith Ali, son of Sarfaraz Shnnaasri, aged 28 years and (iii) Sabeer Ali, son of Usthath Ali, aged 32 years who are now confined in the Central Prison, Coimbatore, are directed to be released forthwith, unless their presence [or] custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.

¶32

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CS-VI)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
ds
To:
1 The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

¶33

2.The Commissioner of Police Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City.

¶34

The Superintendent of Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶35

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order), Fort Saint George, chennai 9

¶36

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

¶37

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶38

H.C.P.Nos.300, 301 & 302 of 2019

¶39

GN(30/05/2019)

¶40

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

Khushruba v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushruba v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

V.Siva Vs State Rep by

Pavadai Vs the State Rep by Its

A.Rajasekaran Vs the Superintendent of Police

P. Kokila, Vs E. Sundaravalli I.A.S.

Mariammal Vs State Rep by

P.S.Paramasivam Vs the State Rep by Its