Karunakaran vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—In this writ application challenge is made to the order passed by the second respondent in Cr. M.P. No. 9/2008 dated 25.06.2008, whereby Tools Mari @ Santhanamari, the son of the petitioner herein, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug offenders, Forest offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic offenders, Sand offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) (hereinafter referred as the Act) terming him as a ''Goonda''.

The court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and also the counter affidavit filed by the State.

Concededly, pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the petitioner was involved in a case in Cr. No. 501/2004, for the offence u/s 379 IPC; in Cr. No. 583/2004, for the offence under Sections 457 and 380 IPC; in Cr. No. 361/2005, for the offence u/s 307 IPC; in Cr. No. 129/2008, for the offence under Sections 341 and 307 IPC and in Cr. No. 130/2008, for the offence under Sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC, all the case are registered on the file of Thiruppuvanam Police Station, which were shown as adverse cases and he was also involved in Cr. No. 131/2008 on the file of Thiruppuvanam Police Station for the offence u/s 307 IPC, which was shown as ground case, the detaining authority after looking into all the materials available recorded his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the Public order and hence there arises a necessity to pass an order of detention by terming the detenu as a ''Goonda'' as termed under the provisions of the Act and accordingly passed the order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Assailing the order, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted the following;

The detenu was arrested following the occurrence on 13.04.2008 in Cr. No. 131/2008 registered by the Thiruppuvanam Police Station for the offence u/s 307 IPC. The order under challenge came to be passed on 25.06.2008, but no bail application was either filed or pending before any Court of criminal jurisdiction. But, the detaining authority has stated in its order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or the higher Courts and this observation made by the detaining authority was without any material or basis whatsoever. It was only an apprehension without reasonable basis and thus the order suffers. Further a copy of the remand report, arrest card and other connected documents were not actually served upon the detenu along with the translated copies of the documents. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would further add that there was an undue delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu and thus, on those grounds, the order has got to be set aside.

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

On scrutiny of the entire materials, the Court has to necessarily agree with the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. It is not in controversy that the order under challenge came to be passed on 25.06.2008 on the strength of the materials placed before the detaining authority. Those materials were pertaining to five adverse cases and one ground case stated supra. The ground case shown as Cr. No. 131/2008 on the file of Thiruppuvanam Police Station, was registered for the offence u/s 307 IPC, for an occurrence taken place on 13.04.2008. According to the materials, it could be seen that the detenu was arrested on the very same day and sent for judicial custody. It is not the case of the State that the detenu was ever applied for bail before any Court. The order under challenge came to be passed on 25.06.2008. If to be so, the observation made by the detaining authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application before the same or Higher Courts was actually an apprehension without any reason, which clearly indicates the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and also prejudging the situation as if a bail application might be filed and orders might be passed in favour of the detenu by granting bail and thus, it is needless to state the order suffers. In so far as the ground as to the supply of arrest card, remand report etc., the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is material for supply of the same and hence the Court is unable to agree with that ground. But, in so far as the translated version is concerned, when the copies are served upon the detenu, there was really a request for giving a translated copy and actually the translated copy was not supplied to him. It is quite evident from the communication particulars what is all mentioned thereunder is that he could get the translated version from the Counsel who is already appointed to him. But that is not accepted, when the detenu is not conversant with the language in which the copies were served and when the request is also made, the authorities should have supply the same so that he could understand the contents of the material. Mere supply of the copies of the documents relied on without making the detenu to understand what it is, would not satisfy the law and hence non compliance by giving the translated version would also made the order suffers and further this would be violative of right available to the detenu and this would make the order suffer. Thirdly, as rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Court is able to notice the delay in consideration of the representation made by the detenu. The representation was made on 15.07.2008, remarks were called on 18.07.2008 and the remarks were received only on 30.07.2008 and there was intervening 12 days delay in between the remarks called for and the receiving of the same. In so far as the interregnum period is concerned, according to the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, there was four days holidays. So there was remaining period of 8 days delay. The State has no explanation for the undue and unreasonable delay of 8 days, which would cause prejudice to the detenu. Thus, the above grounds, in the considered opinion of this Court, would be suffice to set aside the order under challenge. Hence, this Court has made undone by upsetting the order under challenge.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order in Cr.M.P.No.9/2008 dated 25.06.2008 passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.