Allowed

Khushruba v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Mar 2019HCP/304/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 because the Detaining Authority failed to consider bail applications granted in similar pending cases, demonstrating a lack of application of mind. Consequently, the detenu was set at liberty.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 09.05.2018 in C.No.50/G/IS/2018 is set aside, and the detenu Yasar Ali is set at liberty forthwith.

Khushruba Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED 26.03.2019

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR

¶7

HCP.No.304 of 2019

¶8

Khushruba ..Petitioner

¶9

Versus

¶10

1.The State of Tamil Nadu

¶11

Rep.by the Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat,

¶12

Chennai-600 009.

¶13

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

¶14

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus call for the entire records, relating to her husband's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, vide detention order, dated 09.05.2018 on the file of the Second respondent herein made in proceedings C.No.50/G/IS/2018, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce her husband namely Yasar Ali, son of Haji Uzath Ali, aged 47 years before this Court and set her husband at liberty from detention now he is detained at Central prison, Coimbatore.

¶15

For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶16

For Respondents: Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶17

ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J.]

¶18

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who, vide impugned Order of Detention dated 09.05.2018 passed by the 2^nd respondent by invoking Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the detenu as ''Goonda'', came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition.

¶19

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

¶20

A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶21

Sl.No.	Crime No.	Sec	tion	of law Date of occurrence
1.	Coimbatore City, B-2 R.S.Puram Police Station Cr.No.1066/2017	170,	420	IPC 08.10.2017
2.	Coimbatore City, E-3 Saravanampatty Police Station Cr.No.816/2017	420	IPC	14.10.2017
3.	Coimbatore city, D-1 Ramanathapuram Police Station Cr.No.9/2018	420	IPC	04.01.2018
4.	Coimbatore City, B-2 R.S.Puram Police Station Cr.No.101/2018	420	IPC	25.01.2018

¶22

It is further averred in the grounds of detention that the Inspector of Police, B-3 Variety Hall Road Police Station, Coimbatore City on the basis of the complaint has registered a case in Cr.No.155/2018 under Sections 395 r/w 397 IPC (Ground case) and took up the investigation. The detenu was arrested on 01.02.2018 and voluntarily came forward to give confession statement and based on the admissible portion of the confession statement, some incriminating articles were seized. The detenu was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.V, Coimbatore on 02.02.2018 and was ordered to be remanded to judicial custody till 15.02.2018 and the remand period was extended till 15.05.2018.

¶23

The Detaining Authority namely, the 2^nd respondent, on the basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenu, who has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in four cases and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, clamped the impugned orders of detention and challenging the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶24

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu has drawn the attention of this Court to Paragraph No.8(1) of the ground of detention and would submit that the Detaining Authority has noted that in the first and fourth adverse cases, no bail applications have been filed, however in the third adverse where involved in the commission of similar offence, bail was granted to the detenu and therefore, the inferred that there is a real possibility for filing bail applications in the first and fourth adverse cases and coming out on bail and for

¶25

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

¶26

that purpose placed reliance upon the similar case and the admissible details of the similar cases have not been given in the said paragraph and as such, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and hence prays for quashment of the impugned order.

¶27

Per contra, Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that the 2^nd respondent / Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly derived the subjective satisfaction and clamped the order of detention and hence prays for dismissal of this petition.

¶28

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

¶29

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that though the Detaining Authority has derived the subjective satisfaction in similar cases, the concerned Court grants bail after a lapse of certain time and failed to advert to the relevant materials in respect of the similar cases, and hence the same would exhibit lack of application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority as to the real and imminent possibility of the detenu by filing the bail application in first and third adverse cases and the said infirmity would definitely vitiate the impugned order of detention and hence on the sole ground, it warrants interference.

¶30

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the Detention Order passed by the second respondent in C.No.50/G/IS/2018dated 09.05.2018 is set aside and the detenu namely Yasar Ali, son of Haji Uzath Ali, aged 47 years, now confined in Central prison, Coimbatore is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention / custody is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.

¶31

-s/dAssistant Registrar(CCC)

¶32

True Copy

¶33

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶34

¶35

1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat,

¶36

Chennai-600 009.

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

3.The Superintendent Central Prison Coimbatore.

¶40

4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort. St. George Chennai 9.

¶41

5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
HCP.No.304 of 2019
MG(CO)
SP(29/05/2019)

¶42

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

Khushruba v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Khushruba v. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manikandan Vs State Represented by

M.Kalavathy Vs the Commissioner of Police

P.Poonuthyammal Vs Dr. Niranjan Mardi IAS

Deepesh Makkatil @ Ranjith Vs the Secretary to the Government

K.Priya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Khushruba Vs the Secretary to Government