Mrs. Anjalai vs The State of Tamil Nadu

V. Dhanapalan, J.—Petitioner is the mother of the detenue and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 10.04.2013 made in

B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No. 63/2013, passed by the 2nd respondent under which the detenue has been branded as a Bootlegger and detained under

The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders,

Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. As per the grounds of

detention dated 10.04.2013, the detenue came to the adverse notice in the following cases:--

Sl. No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law

1 PEW Mamallapuram @ 4(1)(a) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of

Thirukalukundram Cr. No. 10 ofRS Rules 2000.

2010

2 PEW Mamallapuram @ 4(1)(a) TNP Act r/w 6 & 11 of

Thirukalukundram Cr. No. 68 ofRS Rules 2000.

2010

3 PEW Mamallapuram @ 4(1)(aaa) , 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w

Thirukalukundram Cr. No. 7 of 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000.

2012

4 PEW Mamallapuram @ 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) TNP Act r/w

Thirukalukundram Cr. No. 216 6 & 11 of RS Rules 2000.

of 2012

5 PEW Mamallapuram @ 4(1)(a), 4(1-A) TNPActr/w 7

Thirukalukundram Cr. No. 84 of& 11 of RS Rules 2000.

2013

In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenue is also involved in the commission of the offence, which

took place on 11.04.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in

Crime No. 85 of 2013 under Sections 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000. It is further

stated that the detenue was arrested on the same day i.e. on 11.04.2013 at 06.00 hours and was produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial

Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and remanded to judicial custody till 28.03.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon

the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention.

Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised several grounds to attack the impugned order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument

on the ground that the order of detention is passed on 10.04.2013 taking into consideration the ground case which is alleged to have taken place

on 11.04.2013 and submits that the factum of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority is explicitly evident and, therefore, the

impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed on this sole ground.

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents

produced before us.

A perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenue on 10.04.2013 branding her as

a ""Bootlegger"". Such an order contains the details of all the adverse cases in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on

11.04.2013. In paragraph 3 of the detention order it is stated that,

On 11.04.2013 morning while conducting prohibition raid by the Inspector of Police, PEW, Mamallapuram @ Tirukalukundram along with the

Police party at the layout of Indira Nagar situated at Vayalur Village in Sadras PS limit found a female person who was sitting near thorny bushes

by possessing a plastic gunny bag and giving something from the bag to the general public and receiving money from them.... Tmt. Uma was

arrested by morning 6.00 AM for possessing and selling of noxious diluted rectified spirit....

From the aforesaid narration of events, it is seen that the ground case came to be registered in Cr. No. 85 of 2013 on 11.04.2013 at 7.20 a.m. in

PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram for offences u/s. 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa), 4(1-A) of T.N.P. Act r/w 7 & 11 of RS Rules 2000 against the

detenue and later, since the detaining authority was of the considered opinion that the activities of the detenue are prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order, the detention order came to be passed. In the normal circumstances, only after the registration of the ground case, the detaining

authority can arrive at a subjective satisfaction to clamp the detention order. Whereas, in the case on hand, the detaining authority has come to a

conclusion on the earlier day itself i.e. 10.04.2013 with a notion that a ground case would be registered on 11.04.2013. This glaringly shows the

non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order. As if this is not enough, the detaining authority has

proceeded to go on and stated in paragraph 3 of the detention order that the detenue, who was arrested on 11.04.2013 in Cr. No. 85 of 2013 in

PEW, Mamallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, was produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same

day and ordered to be remanded in ""Judicial Custody upto 28.03.2013"". Further, at paragraph 5, the detaining authority has stated that,

I am aware that Tmt. Uma was arrested in connection with PEW, Mammallapuram @ Thirukalukundram in Cr. No. 85/2013 on 14.03.2013

and produced before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Thirukalukundram, on the same day and ordered to be remanded in ""Judicial

Custody upto 28.03.2013....

The materials placed before us shows that the occurrence in the ground case took place on 11.04.2013, the detenue was arrested at 6.00 a.m. on

that day, the case was registered in Cr. No. 85 of 2013 by PEW, Mammallapuram @ Thirukalukundram, at 7.20 a.m. That being so, we don''t

understand as to how the detaining authority has stated that the detenue, was arrested in connection with PEW, Mammallapuram @

Thirukalukundram, in Cr. No. 85/2013 on 14.03.2013, produced before the concerned Magistrate and remanded to Judicial Custody upto

28.03.2013. For a crime registered on 11.04.2013, there cannot be an arrest on 14.03.2013.

Thus, all the aforesaid facts and circumstances show that the detaining authority has not at all applied his mind while clamping the detention order

on the detenue and, hence, it cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the

detenue, namely Tmt. T. Uma, W/o. Kumar, made in B.D.F.G.I.S.S.V. No. 63/2013 dated 10.04.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus

petition is allowed. The above named detenue is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her custody is required in connection with any other

case.