AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sathyanaryanan, J.—The wife of the detenu is the Petitioner and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 13.11.2010, passed
by the second Respondent under which, the detenu has been branded as a ""Bootlegger"" and detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14
of 1982.
As per the grounds of detention dated 13.11.2010, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 85/2010, for the commission of the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act. The offence said to have taken place
on 20.02.2010 at 18.30 hours.
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 112/2010, for the commission of the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act. The offence said to have taken
place on 14.03.2010 at 21.00 hours.
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 116/2010, for the commission of the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act. The offence said to have taken
place on 15.03.2010 at 18.40 hours.
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 118/2010, for the commission of the offences under Sections 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(aa)
of TNP Act. The offence said to have taken place on 16.03.2010 at 12.00 hours.
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 162/2010, for the commission of the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act.
The offence said to have taken place on 24.04.2010 at 08.30 hours.
Kalambur Police Station Crime No. 163/2010, for the commission of the offence u/s 4(1)(aa) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(aa) of TNP Act.
The offence said to have taken place on 24.04.2010 at 08.30 hours.
Cheyyar PEW Crime No. 810/2010, for the commission of the offences u/s 4(1)(i) r/w 4(1-A)(ii) TNP Act @ 4(1)(i) of TNP Act. The offence
said to have taken place on 29.08.2010 at 10.00 hours.
It is further stated in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention that the detenu was also involved in the alleged commission of the offences, which
said to have taken place on 25.09.2010 at 13.00 hours and in this regard an FIR was registered by Kalambur Police Station in Crime No.
275/2010 under Sections 4(1)(i) read with 4(1-A)(ii) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. It was subsequently altered into u/s 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) r/w
4(1-A)(ii) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. The detenu was produced before the jurisdictional magistrate on 25.09.2010 and was remanded
till 08.10.2010 and subsequently, the remand was extended up to 15.11.2010.
The Detaining Authority, on being satisfied with the materials placed before him by the Sponsoring Authority, has arrived at a subjective
satisfaction that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence clamped the order of detention.
Ms. L. Poompavai, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of
detention and would submit that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the orders granting bail in all the adverse cases and arrived at
subjective satisfaction that in the ground case, there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application cannot be ruled out and
hence clamped the order of detention. However, the copies of the bail orders relied upon by the Detaining Authority in the adverse cases have not
been furnished to the detenu and therefore the detenu is prevented from making an effective representation for the revocation of the order of
detention.
Per contra, Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would submit that since the orders granting bail are known to
the detenu and the Detainig Authority has arrived the subjective satisfaction based on the materials furnished to him by the sponsoring authority,
there is no necessity on the part of the Detaining Authority to furnish those documents and prayed for dismissal of the Habeas Corpus Petition.
This Court, after taking into consideration the rival submissions and perusal of the booklet, is of the view that the order of detention is vitiated for
the following reasons:
Admittedly, the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the orders granting bail in all adverse cases and those documents are relied upon
documents. However, the fact remains that copies of those documents have not been furnished to the detenu. A perusal of the booklet would also
disclose that even in the affidavit of the Sponsoring Authority, no reference as to the grant of bail in adverse cases to the detenu has been stated
and it is not made clear as to where from the Detaining Authority has got those particulars and arrived at subjective satisfaction as to the real and
imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. In the considered opinion of this Court, the above said infirmity would vitiate the order of
detention and therefore the Order of Detention is liable to be set aside for the above said reasons.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second Respondent in D.O. No. 99/2010-C2
dated 13.11.2010 is quashed. The detenu Kabali, S/o. Govindasamy, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless her detention/custody is
required in connection with any other case or proceedings.