Mathiyalagan 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 S.C. No.

56/2009 dated 9.12.2009, whereby his friend Murugan 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 14 adverse cases

viz. (i) Crime No. 202 of 2006 registered by Hudco Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No. 203 of 2006

registered by Hudco Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii)Crime No. 27 of 2009 registered by Berigai Police

Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No. 367 of 2009 registered by Shoolagiri Police Station for

the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No. 190 of 2009 registered by Sipcot Police Station for the offences

under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vi) Crime No. 295 of 2009 registered by Hudco Police Station for the offences under

Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (vii) Crime No. 1353 of 2009 registered by Hosur Town Police Station for the offences under

Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (viii) Crime No. 1354 of 2009 registered by Hosur town Police Station for the offences under

Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (ix) Crime No. 302 of 2009 registered by Royakottai Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the

Indian Penal Code; (x) Crime No. 266 of 2009 registered by Mathigiri Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (xi) Crime

No. 243 of 2009 registered by Royakottai Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (xii) Crime No. 357

of 2009 registered by Sipcot Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (xiii) Crime No. 302 of 2009 registered by Mathigiri

Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (xiv) Crime No. 296 of 2009 registered by Mathigiri Police Station for the

offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 369 of 2009 registered by Bagalur police station

for the offences under Sections 341, 392, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 19.11.2009 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.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner raised three grounds to set aside the detention order. Firstly, in the detention order, the Authority

has observed that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail since in similar cases, bails are granted by this Court. But, no

particulars or materials were furnished to make effective representation. Secondly, in page No. 8 of the detention order, crime number is

mentioned as 369 of 2009 whereas in page No. 9 of the detention order, crime number is mentioned as 360 of 2009, which would clearly indicate

the non application of mind. Thirdly, insofar as adverse cases 7 to 14 are concerned, the detenu was arrested on 20.11.2009, but the date of

arrest, even the factum of arrest was actually not reflected in the grounds of detention, which shows non-application of mind on the part of the

detaining Authority.

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 14 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.

In the detention order, the Authority has observed that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail since in similar cases, bails are

granted by this Court. But, no particulars or materials are furnished to make effective representation. Apart from this, in page No. 8 of the

detention order, crime number is mentioned as 369 of 2009 whereas in page No. 9 of the detention order, crime number is mentioned as 360 of

2009. Thirdly, insofar as adverse cases 7 to 14 are concerned, the detenu was arrested on 20.11.2009, but the date of arrest, even the factum of

arrest was actually not reflected in the grounds of detention. All would clearly indicate 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 S.C. No. 56/2009

dated 9.12.2009. The detenu, namely, Murugan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Salem is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his

custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.