AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner is the father of detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in Memo No. 1021/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013.
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following case:-
Sr.No.
Police Station and Crime No.
Sections of Law
1.
V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No. 432 of 2013
Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC
2.
V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No. 1141 of 2013
Sections 384 and 506(ii) IPC
3.
V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, Crime No. 1250 of 2013
Sections 294(b), 341 and 307 IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 27.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, V-4, Rajamangalam Police Station, in Crime No. 1254 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.
Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has mentioned about the extension of remand of the detenu to judicial custody till 19.09.2013 in para 3 of the detention order, such extension order has not been furnished to the detenu, which has deprived the detenu in making effective representation for his redressal and therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.
From a perusal of the detention order at paragraph no.3, the detaining authority stated that the Inspector of Police produced accused Thiru.Appu @ Ilavazhagan before the Court of XIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai-53, on 27.08.2013, who ordered the accused to be remanded till 10.09.2013 and lodged him at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai as remand prisoner and subsequently, his remand period was extended upto 19.09.2013. Once a particular document is relied in the detention order, it is incumbent on the detaining authority to provide such document / order to the detenu. But a close reading of the entire booklet, especially page no.93, reveals extension of the detenu''s remand upto 10.09.2013 only and there is no order annexed as to the subsequent period of extension till 19.09.2013, though the said fact finds place in the detention order, which would definitely create confusion in the mind of the detenu and also deprive him the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same, which amounts to an infringement of right ensured under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India, vitiates the order of detention. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Appu @ Ilavazhagan, S/o. Anburose, made in Memo No. 1021/BDFGISSV/2013 dated 17.09.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.