Mrs. Kutti 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

70/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 10.4.2010, whereby her husband C. Ramesh 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 nine adverse cases

viz. (i) Crime No. 833 of 2001 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code;

(ii) Crime No. 897 of 2001 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii)

Crime No. 773 of 2002 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv)

Crime No. 789 of 2002 registered by E-4, Maduravoyal Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No. 46 of

2010 registered by T-12, Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 511 of the Indian Penal Code @ 457, 380 of the Indian

Penal Code; (vi) Crime No. 50 of 2010 registered by T-12, Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian

Penal Code; (vii) Crime No. 72 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian

Penal Code; (viii) Crime No. 80 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ix)

Crime No. 85 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamalee Police Station for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one

ground case in Crime No. 162 of 2010 registered by T-12 Poonamallee police station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427,

397, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 18.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on 19.3.2010, 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.

The only contention put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention

order is that the detenu moved for bail in adverse cases 5 to 9 viz. Crime Nos. 46, 50, 72, 80 and 85 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No.

II, Poonamallee and the same were dismissed on 8.4.2010, but the detention order came to be passed on 10.4.2010. Apart from this, the detenu

has not moved for any bail in ground case in Crime No. 162 of 2010, which was registered for the grave offence u/s 397 of the Indian Penal

Code. But the Authority has observed that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which is 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 nine 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. It is an admitted position that though the

detenu has moved for bail in adverse cases 5 to 9 viz. Crime Nos. 46, 50, 72, 80 and 85 of 2010 before the Judicial Magistrate No. II,

Poonamallee, the same were dismissed on 8.4.2010. But the detenu has not moved any bail in respect of ground case, which is registered for

grave offence u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:

I am aware that Thiru. Ramesh is in remand in T-12, Poonamallee police station Crime Nos. 46/2010, 50/2010, 72/2010, 80/2010, 85/2010

and 162/2010. He has filed a bail petitions in Poonameelee P.S. Cr. Nos. 46/2010, 50/2010, 72/2010, 80/2010 and 85/2010 before the Judicial

Magistrate II, Poonamallee vide Crl. M.P. Nos. 1739/2010, 1738/2010, 1736/2010, 1744/2010 and 1737/2010 and the same were dismissed

on 08.04.2010. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a another bail application before

the Court of Sessions or Hon''ble High Court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on

bail, he will indulge in further 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 effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public

order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru. Ramesh is a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to

detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under

the provisions 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.

On this ground, 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 70/BDFGISSV/2010

dated 10.4.2010. The detenu, namely, C. Ramesh, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith

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