Lakshmi vs The State of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in Cr.M.P. No. 11 of 2010 dated 28.3.2010, whereby her husband Santhosh 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 one adverse case viz. Crime No. 37 of 2010 registered by Meensurutty Police Station for the offence u/s 394 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 40 of 2010 registered by Meensurutty police station for the offences under Sections 341, 397 read with 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 28.1.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 30.1.2010, 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.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel would submit that the detenu has not filed any bail application in anyone of the cases either in the adverse case or in the ground case. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 5 of the detention order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis. Apart from this, remand extension order in Crime No. 37 of 2010 supplied to him does not pertain to the detenu, but the said order pertains to the co-accused. Therefore, it would not serve the purpose for which it was expected to be served and the detenu could not make effective representation to put forth his defence.

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 one adverse case and one ground case as referred to above and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

It is an admitted position that the detenu has not filed any bail application in anyone of the cases either in the adverse case or in the ground case. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 5 of the detention order as follows:

I am aware that Thiru. Santhosh is in judicial custody in Meensurutty P.S. in Cr. Nos. 37/2010 & 40/2010 and has not moved any bail application. I am also aware there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for the above cases, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the concerned Court or Higher Courts after lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I have concluded that Thiru. Santhosh son of Raj (a) Rajaelu is a "GOONDA'' and there is necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from involving in activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions to 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

From the above, it is quite clear that the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. 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. Apart from this, remand extension order in Crime No. 37 of 2010 pertains to the detenu was not supplied to him, but the said order pertains to the co-accused. Therefore, it would not serve the purpose for which it was expected to be served and the detenu could not make effective representation to put forth his defence. On these grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P. No. 11 of 2010 dated 28.3.2010. The detenu, namely, Santhosh, who is now confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.