AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner is the brother 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 BDFGISSV No.645/2013 dated 09.08.2013.
The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
Sr.No.
Police Station and Crime No.
Sections of Law
1.
R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Crime No.819 of 2013
Section 379 IPC
2.
R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Crime No.835 of 2013
Sections 454, 380, 511 IPC @ 454, 380 IPC
3.
E-3, Teynampet Police Station, Crime No.1840 of 2013
E-3, Teynampet Police Station,
Crime No.1840 of 2013
4.
-2, Kodambakkam Police Station, Crime No.1389 of 2013
Section 379 IPC
The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 09.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, R-2, Kodambakkam Police Station in Crime No. 1408 of 2013 for offences under Sections 341, 353, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.
3.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 relied on two bail orders, viz., one granted by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011 and another by learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.11361 of 2012 in similar cases to the accused therein and arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime Nos.819 of 2013, 835 of 2013, 1389 of 2013, 1840 of 2013, and 1408 of 2013, four adverse cases and one ground case, by filing bail applications, but the bail order granted in the similar case in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011 relied on by the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu at the time of passing the order of detention, 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.
4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.
5.A reading of the detention order shows that the detaining authority, by stating that in similar cases, one registered at R-1, Mambalam Police Station in Crime No.1561 of 2011 for offence u/s 379 IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011 and another registered at K-4, Anna Nagar Police Station in Crime No.2469 of 2012 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 353, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused therein by the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.11361 of 2012, inferred that there is a real possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail in the event of filing any bail application in respect of adverse and ground cases in Crime Nos.819 of 2013, 835 of 2013, 1389 of 2013, 1840 of 2013, and 1408 of 2013. In such situation, it is incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to provide a copy of bail order, pertaining to the similar case to the detenu. But a perusal of the entire booklet reveals that there is no material annexed in it with respect to the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority in respect of Crime No.1561 of 2011 in Crl.M.P.No.3359 of 2011, which in our considered opinion, would definitely deprive the detenu 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 reason stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.
6.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu Thangamani, S/o. Kaliappan, made in BDFGISSV No.645/2013 dated 09.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.