Ammu vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V. Dhanapalan, J.—Petitioner is the wife of the detenu who challenges the order of detention dated 26.08.2013 made in Memo No. 808/BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under 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, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

As per the grounds of detention dated 26.08.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases:-

Sl. No.

Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law

1.

M6 Manali Police Station Cr. No. 437 of 2009

U/s. 294 (b), 506(ii) I.P.C. r/w 4(1)J of T.N.P. Act

2.

M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr. No. 286 of 2013

U/s. 397 & 307 I.P.C.

3.

M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr. No: 316 of 2013

U/s. 392 I.P.C.

4.

M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Cr. No: 286 of 2013

U/s. 447 & 380 I.P.C.

5.

M6 Manali Police Station Cr. No: 997 of 2013

U/s. 341, 294(b), 392, 397 r/w 506 (ii) I.P.C.

In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 16.08.2013 morning at about 09.15 hours, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, M7 Manali New Town Police Station, in Crime No. 680 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506(ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on the same day i.e. on 16.08.2013 at 13.00 hours and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court II, Ponneri, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 30.08.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to attack the impugned order of detention, his main thrust of argument was on the ground that there is no material to support the statement made by the detaining authority that detenu''s relatives are taking steps to bail out the detenu in the 4th and 5th adverse cases especially when this was relied on by the detaining authority to pass the detention order. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.

A perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenu on 26.08.2013 branding him as a "Goonda". Such an order contains the details of all the five adverse cases in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 16.08.2013. In paragraph 4 of the detention order the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in M-7 Manali New Town Police Station Crime No. 680 of 2013 and has moved a bail application before the Court of District Principal Sessions, Thiruvallur, in Crl. M.P. No. 2251/2013 and the same is pending. He has also mentioned that the detenu was formally arrested in M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No. 742/2013 and M-6 Manali Police Station Crime No. 997 of 2013 and is yet to be produced for remand before the Court, and if he was remanded there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing application before the appropriate Court since the relatives have moved bail application for M-7 Manali New Town Police Station, the sponsoring authority has stated that they will move bail application for the formally arrested case also. The special report of the sponsoring authority is found annexed at page 166 of the booklet. On a perusal of the said report we find that nowhere the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file bail application for the formally arrested case also. It only states that the Crl. M.P. No. 2551 of 2013 filed by the detenu with regard to M-7 Manali New Town Police Station Crime No. 680 of 2013 is pending on the file of the Principal and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur District. Though it is true that the detaining authority is competent and empowered to arrive at a subjective satisfaction about the likelihood of the detenu indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, such satisfaction should be supported by relevant materials. In this case, a perusal of Page No. 166 of the Booklet indicate that there is no material information available to the detaining authority to arrive at a conclusion that the relatives of the detenu shall file bail application and that the detenu is likely to come out on bail. Hence, the detention order passed, relying on material information not available on record, cannot be sustained in law.

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Thiru. Kumaresan @ Kumar @ Sorikumar, S/o. Munusamy, made in Memo No. 808/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 26.08.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.