Easwaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition is brought forth by the friend of the detenu challenging the order of the second Respondent in Memo No. 508/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 6.9.2010, whereby his friend Subramani @ Alayamani was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.

The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No. 501 of 2010 registered by J.1 Saidapet Police Station for an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No. 876 of 2010 registered by E.3 Teynampet Police Station for an offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No. 945 of 2010 registered by E.3 Teynampet Police Station for an offence u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 1187 of 2010 registered by E.3 Teynampet police station for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 19.8.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

While advancing arguments on behalf of the Petitioner, learned Counsel would submit that the detenu was arrested not only in Crime No. 1187 of 2010, shown as ground case, but also in third and fourth adverse cases referred to above. While the third adverse case was registered u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the ground case was registered u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu has not moved for any bail application in anyone of the cases. Apart from this, ordinarily, in grave crime, bail would not be granted, till completion of investigation. But the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis.

Learned Counsel added further that the detenu was arrested on 19.8.2010 and he was produced before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai on 20.8.2010 and he was remanded till 2.9.2010, as could be seen in page No. 175 of the booklet, which contains the remand order. Contrarily, this order is reflected in the grounds of detention, as if he was remanded till 3.9.2010. The order of detention was passed on 6.9.2010. Thus, from 2.9.2010 till the time when the order of detention came to be passed on 6.9.2010, whether the detenu was under custody by remand extention or not remained unknown. The Detaining Authority has not looked into the said aspect of the matter while passing the detention order. This would quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. On these grounds the detention order has got to be set aside.

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

As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to three adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

It is not in controversy that the detenu was arrested not only in Crime No. 1187 of 2010, shown as ground case, but also in third and fourth adverse cases referred to above. While the third adverse case was registered u/s 392 of the Indian Penal Code, the ground case was registered u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. The detenu has not moved for any bail application in anyone of the cases. Apart from this, ordinarily, in grave crime, bail would not be granted, till completion of investigation. But the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require.

Added further, the detenu was arrested on 19.8.2010 and he was produced before the 18th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet, Chennai on 20.8.2010 and he was remanded till 2.9.2010, as could be seen in page No. 175 of the booklet, which contains the remand order. Contrarily, this order is reflected in the grounds of detention, as if he was remanded till 3.9.2010. The order of detention was passed on 6.9.2010. Thus, from 2.9.2010 till the time when the order of detention came to be passed on 6.9.2010, whether the detenu was under custody by remand extention or not remained unknown. The Detaining Authority has not looked into the said aspect of the matter while passing the detention order. This would quite indicative of the fact of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. On these grounds the detention order has got to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second Respondent in Memo No. 508/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 6.9.2010. The detenu, namely, Subramani @ Alayamani, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.