Dismissed

Thinagaran v. the Special Secretary to Government(Home)

Madras HC6 Nov 2020HCP/821/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a Habeas Corpus petition, the High Court dismissed the challenge to a detention order under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 2008, holding the order valid based on the detenu's history of violent crimes and pending cases, rejecting claims of delay and evidence illegibility.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus petition challenging the detention order under the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 2008 was dismissed.

Thinagaran Vs the Special Secretary to… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

RESERVED ON : 05.01.2021 PRONOUNCED ON : 21.01.2021

¶3

Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM

¶4

H.C.P. No. 821 of 2020

¶5

Thinagaran .. Petitioner Vs.

¶6

1.The Special Secretary to Government (Home), Government of Puducherry, Chief Secretariat, Gubert Avenue, Puducherry-605 001

¶7

2.The District Magistrate Cum Authorized Officer, 1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road, Kavundanpalayam, Pudhucherry-605009

¶8

3.The Superintendent of Police, O/o. The Superintendent of Police, Puducherry.

¶9

4.The Chief Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry.

¶10

5.State rep. by Inspector of Police, Ariyankuppam Police Station, Puducherry. ..Respondents

¶11

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus directing respondents to call for the records relating to the Detention Order vide No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2020, dated 27.05.2020, passed by the Second Respondent under Section 3(2) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 2008 and quash the same and produce the Aswin, S/o. Elangovan, aged about 30 years, (who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Kalapet) before this Court.

¶12

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

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.N.Arunkumar For Respondents: Mr.Bharathachakravarthy Public Prosecutor (Puducherry)

¶14

ORDER

¶15

V.SIVAGNANAM,J.

¶16

The petitioner is the friend of one Aswin s/o. Ilangovan, aged about 30 years, who has been detained under Section 3(2) of the Puducherry Prevention of Anti-Social Activities Act 2008 branding him as a ''Dangerous person'', by the order of detention passed by the second respondent, vide No.14/DM/RO/D2/PPASAA/2020, dated 27.05.2020. Challenging the same, the petitioner is before this Court with this Habeas Corpus petition.

¶17

We have heard, Mr.S.N.Arunkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.Bharathachakravarthy, the learned Public Prosecutor (Puducherry) appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the materials on record.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was remanded to custody on 08.11.2019 in connection with the case registered in Crime No.138 of 2019 under Section 147, 148 and 302 IPC and 3 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 149 IPC under Section 120(B), 147, 148, 302 IPC and 3 and 4 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 149 IPC of Ariyankuppam Police Station. He filed a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.94 of 2020 for bail before the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry. Bail was granted on 27.05.2020 and immediately the impugned detention order was passed with an inordinate delay of six months. It was further submitted that the representation sent to the respondent on 01.06.2020 was not considered. The documents supplied to the detenu in Page Nos. 24, 28, 42, 60, 62 and 78 others are illegible. Even though a specific request was made to supply fresh legible copy, it has not been done. The detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is in custody for a long period and bail has been granted. The detention order is illegal and the authority passed the order reflects nonapplication of mind and thus pleaded to set aside the impugned detention order.

¶19

The learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents supported the detention order and further stated that the detenu is involved in as many as 16 criminal cases in which three cases are of murder and two are attempt to murder and other cases are robbery. Now, 16 cases are pending. In some cases he has been prosecuted under Arms Act. Therefore, the detaining authority declared him as a ''Dangerous Person'' and thus pleaded to dismiss the Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶20

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

¶21

5.We have perused the detention order. The detention order reveals the fact that the detenu is involved in as many as 16 criminal cases, which read as follows:

¶22

Sl.No .	Details of the Criminal Cases	Status
i.	Cr.No.367/2009 u/s. 302 IPC r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908 of PS Mudaliarpet dt. 24.12.2009	Pending Trial
ii.	Cr. No. 406/2016 U/s 147, 148, 302, 324, 120-B IPC r/w 149 IPC and 25 (i-a), 27(i) of Arms Act and 3,5,6 Explosive Substances Act 1908 of Villupuram Town PS, dt. 04.10.2016:-	Pending Trial
iii.	Cr. No.18/2016 U/s 147, 148, 341, 109, 307 IPC and 3 of POPPD Act r/w 3(a) & 4(a), 5 r/w 6 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 3(a) & 4(a), 5 r/w 6 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 of Town PS, Villupuram dt. 22.01.2016	Pending Trial
iv.	Cr. No.33/2016 U/s 307 IPC r/w 34 IPC @ 307,120(b) r/w 149 IPC of Neravy PS, Karaikal dt.19.06.2016	Pending Trial
v.	Cr.31/2012 U/s 397 IPC of Arovile PS, Tamil Nadu dt.19.01.2012.	Pending Trial
vi.	Cr.No.13/2012 U/s . 392, 427 IPC r/w 34 IPC @ 395, 427 IPC r/w 109 IPC dt.29.01.2012 of PS Thirubuvanai	Pending Trial
vii.	Cr.No.488/2016 U/s 399 IPC of Kottakuppam PS, Dated 04.08.2016	Pending Trial
viii.	Cr. No.398/2016 U/s 392 IPC of Kottakuppam PS, Dated 02.06.2016	Pending Trial
ix.	Cr. No.49/2013 U/s 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC @ 395, & 109 IPC dated 26.04.2013 of Thirubuvanai PS, Puducherry	Pending Trial
x.	Cr. No.151/2011 U/s 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC @ 395 IPC dt. 12.06.2011 of Ariyankuppam PS Puducherry	Pending Trial
xi.	Cr. No.102/2018 U/s 356, 379 IPC r/w 34 IPC of Ariyankuppam PS, dt.13.07.2018	Pending Trial

¶23

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

¶24

Sl.No .	Details of the Criminal Cases	Status
xii	Cr. No.163/2016 U/s 3 of Explosive Substances	Pending Trial
	Act 1908 of Mudaliarpet PS dt. 16.09.2016
xiii.	Cr. No.91/2013 U/s 341, 324, 506 (ii) IPC r/w	Pending Trial
	34 IPC of Ariyankuppam PS dt:28.06.2013
xiv	Cr. No.90/2013 u/s 147, 449, 342 , 332, 506(ii) IPC and 120(b) IPC r/w 149 IPC and 27 of Arms Act 1959 of Yenam PS dt:29.08.2013.	Pending Trial
xv.	Cr. No.62/2016 u/s 324, 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC @ 392 IPC r/w 34 IPC dt: 22.05.2016 of Lawspet PS.	Pending Trial
xvi.	Cr. No.138/2019 U/s 147, 148, 302 IPC and 3 of Explosive Substances	Pending Trial
	Act 1908 r/w 149 IPC @ U/s 120(b), 147, 148, 302 IPC and 3, 4 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 149 IPC Dt. 06.11.2019 of Ariyankuppam PS.

¶25

It is an admitted fact that the detenu was involved in Crime No.138 of 2017 of Ariyankuppam Police Station for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 302 IPC and 3 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 r/w 149 IPC and under Sections 120(B), 147, 148, 302 IPC and 3, 4 of Explosive Substances Act r/w 149 IPC. He was remanded to judicial custody on 08.11.2019. The detenu applied for bail in Crl.M.P.No.94 of 2020 before the Principal Sessions Court, Puducherry. Bail was ordered on 27.05.2020, however, before his release on bail, the detention order was passed.

¶26

Assailing the said order, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order was passed with an inordinate delay after the detenu was arrested in the ground case and that there was delay in the disposal of the representation given by the detenu.

¶27

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

¶28

8.The District Collector, Puducherry has filed the counter affidavit wherein he has stated as follows:

¶29

''7.I deny the ground (a) that the detention order is illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Article 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. I deny the ground (b) that there was inordinate delay in passing the detention order. I sincerely submit that when the detention order was placed before the Advisory Board, it was observed that, ''passing and order of detention after an incident of arrest IPSO FACTO is not fatal to detention order as the Dictum rendered by the Apex Court reported in 1981 (4) SCC 647- Hemalata Kanilal Shah Vs. State of Maharashtra''. I humbly submit that the detention order was passed after the necessity arose after the attempts of the detenue (sic detenu) to be enlarged under the regular criminal procedure. The ground No.(c ) is without any merit since the representation was considered by the Home Department and was duly replied vide letter No.42206/Home/PPASAA2020/15 dt.18.06.2020.''

¶30

Thus, from the above, it is clear that satisfactory explanation has been given by the authority for the alleged delay in passing of the detention order and for the alleged delay in the disposal of the representation of the petitioner.

¶31

9.The learned counsel further contended that some of the papers in the documents submitted to the detenu in Page Nos. 24, 28, 42, 60, 62 and 78 others are illegible. The purpose of furnishing the booklet to the detenu is to make him know the materials upon which the order of detention has been made by the detaining authority. There is no allegation from the detenu that because of illegible copies in the above said pages, he cannot make effective representation. Therefore, on that ground, we cannot hold that the detention order is vitiated.

¶32

10.On perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that as on the date of order of detention there was material available before the detaining authority that the detenu moved bail application and also obtained bail.

¶33

11.The power of preventive detention is the precautionary power exercised in reasonable anticipation. In the instant case, the detenu is in custody in connection with the above said

¶34

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

¶35

criminal case and he is also involved 15 cases including three murder cases. The authority passing the order is aware of the fact that the detenu moved for bail and also obtained order and on being so released, we would, in all probability, indulge in prejudicial activities and the authority felt essential to detain him to prevent him from so doing. The anticipated behaviour of a person based on his past conduct in the light of surrounding circumstances provide sufficient ground for detention. The detaining authority passed the order after recording his satisfaction in this behalf and such an order cannot be struck down. We do not find any merit in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶36

12.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is dismissed.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vsn
To
1.The Special Secretary to Government (Home),
Government of Puducherry,
Chief Secretariat,
Gubert Avenue,
Puducherry-605 001
2.The District Magistrate Cum Authorized Officer,
1st Floor, Vazhadhavoor Road,
Kavundanpalayam,
Pudhucherry-605009
3.The Superintendent of Police,
O/o. The Superintendent of Police,
Puducherry.
4.The Chief Jail Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Kalapet,
Puducherry.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Ariyankuppam Police Station,
Puducherry.