Azhagu vs The State of Tamilnadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 24.08.2009 whereby the petitioner

detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14 of 1982 branding him as a Goonda as defined under the provisions of the Act.

The Court heard the learned Counsel on either side and looked into all the materials available including the order under challenge.

Admittedly pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in five adverse cases namely (1)

registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 969 of 2008 u/s 399 IPC (2) registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in

Crime No. 619 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC (3) registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 870 of

2009 under Sections 385, 427 and 506(ii) IPC (4) registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 875 of 2009 under Sections 385,

427 and 506(ii)IPC and (5) registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station in Crime No. 878 of 2009 under Sections 294(b), 427 and 506(ii)

IPC and also another case shown as ground case in Crime No. 882 of 2009 registered by R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station under Sections 341,

294(b), 323, 427, 336, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, on scrutiny of the materials, the detaining authority after recording its subjective

satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and has made the order under challenge after

branding him as Goonda.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would urge only two points. Firstly, in so far as the ground case is

concerned, he has not moved any bail application before the appropriate Court. On the contrary, the detaining authority has pointed out that there

was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and thus it was only an inference without any basis or any material whatsoever and thus it

would vitiate the order.

Added further learned Counsel so far as the page No. 109 in the booklet is concerned, in the special report though the 2nd adverse case of the

detenue is Cr. No. 619 of 2009, it is mentioned as Cr. No. 619 of 2008, which was not related to the petitioner. Under such circumstances, the

detaining authority should have called for a clarification, but not done so and hence on both the grounds, the order has got to be set aside.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on both the contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

As far as the first ground is concerned, admittedly, the petitioner has not moved any bail application in Crime No. 882 of 2009 before any

criminal court. But the detaining authority has stated in its order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, it

would be indicative of an expression of the impression or the inference of the authority without any material much less cogent material. Hence this

ground would suffice to set aside the order.

Apart from that, in the special report placed by the sponsoring authority at page No. 109, what is found is Crime No. 619 of 2008 but the 2nd

adverse case which the petitioner is concerned was Cr. No. 619 of 2009. When there is a discrepancy, a duty is cast upon the detaining authority

to call for a clarification, but failed to do so. Hence, both the grounds are available to the detenu to set aside the order.

Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.