Tmt. ChandramathiW/o. Deilson v. State
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Tamil Nadu Act
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 ss. 307, 336, 379, 380, 384, 392, 506(ii)
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. I am aware that Thiru Stalin Jose is in remand inJ.3 Guindy Police Station Crime No.1560/2006 and he hasnot moved any bail application so far. I am also awarethat there is real possibility of his coming out on bailby filing bail application before Sessions…
- Para 1111. In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaiddecision of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the FullBench is clearly applicable to the present case and accordingly thedetention order is also required to be quashed on the said ground. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true…
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 09-07-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIHABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.143 OF 2007 Tmt. ChandramathiW/o. Deilson.. PetitionerVs.
State. rep. by its Secretaryto Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai 600 009.
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8... RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiafor the issuance of writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondentsto produce the detenu viz., Stalin Jose, son of Deilson, who is nowdetained in Central Prison, Chennai in pursuance of the detentionorder passed by the 2nd respondent on 9.11.2006 in MemoNo.275/BDFGISSV/2006, before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner: Mr.S. Swamidoss ManokaranFor Respondents: Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E RP.K. MISRA, JThe mother of the detenu has filed this Habeas CorpusPetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashingthe order of detention dated 9.11.2006 passed under Section 3(1) ofthe Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral TrafficOffenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) on the allegation that the detenu is aGoonda within the meaning of the said Act.2.
The detenu, who is aged about 22 years, came to adversenotice in eight cases indicated in the grounds of detention. Fromthe tabular column furnished in the grounds of detention it appearsthat R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.40/2006 registered under Section 392r/w.34 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.926 of 2006. Thesecond adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.44/2006 registeredunder Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.925 of2006. The third adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.45/2006registered under Section 379 IPC was charged and pending trial inC.C.No.1987 of 2006. The fourth adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PSCr.No.65/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged andpending trial in C.C.No.1988 of 2006. The fifth adverse case R-6Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.66/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC wascharged and pending trial in C.C.No.1989 of 2006. The sixth adversecase R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.68/2006 registered under Section 379IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.1990 of 2006.
Theseventh adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.237/2006 registeredunder Section 380 IPC was charged and pending trial in C.C.No.3907of 2006. The second adverse case R-6 Kumaran Nagar PSCr.No.44/2006 registered under Section 379 IPC was charged andpending trial in C.C.No.925 of 2006. The eighth adverse case R-6Kumaran Nagar PS Cr.No.277/2006 registered under Section 392 IPC wascharged and pending trial in C.C.No.4004 of 2006. The occurrence onwhich the ground case in J-3 Guindy Police Station CrimeNo.1560/2006 has been registered under Sections 336, 307 and 506(ii)IPC is dated 6.9.2006. In the grounds of detention it is narratedthat on the said date the detenu and two other persons, namely, Munusamy and Selvam, came near a vegetable shop at Maduvankarai inmotor cycle. The motor cycle hit a street dog which startedbarking. At that time, one Selvam, who was driving the motor cyclethrew an empty beer bottle on the road which broke into pieces andone of the broken peace hit Tr.
Singaroyan, who is sitting on theroadside platform. Tr. Singaroyan shouted against three persons. Immediately three persons got down from the motor cycle and abusedsuch person in filthy language. At that time the detenu took out abetter bottle and broke the same and rushed to stab such Tr.Singaroyan, but one Tr. Arun Kumar prevented the detenu. Immediately the detenu uttered abusive words and stabbed Tr.ArunKumar over his neck. The other persons raised hue and cry. Thepublic came to the spot to rescue and apprehend. The other personMunusamy took a beer bottle, hurled the same by uttering abusivewords. The bottle fell on the roadside. The public ran out ofdanger. Taking advantage of the panic situation, three personsincluding the detenu escaped from the spot on the motor cycle. ArunKumar was taken to Guindy Balaji Hospital for treatment and oneThiru. Chermakumar proceeded to J-3 Guindy police station and lodged https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ a complaint on the basis of which the ground case was registered.
The Inspector of Police during the course of investigation arrestedthe detenu on 11.9.2006 and subsequently the detenu was producedbefore IX Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet and was remanded till25.9.2006. His remand was extended periodically till 17.11.2006.The investigation into the crime was not yet over. In the abovebackground, the detaining authority passed an order to detain thedetenu as a Goonda by observing inter alia as follows :-"
I am aware that Thiru Stalin Jose is in remand inJ.3 Guindy Police Station Crime No.1560/2006 and he hasnot moved any bail application so far. I am also awarethat there is real possibility of his coming out on bailby filing bail application before Sessions Court or HighCourt since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or High Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will beprejudicial to the maintenance of public order. "3. In the above context, learned counsel for thepetitioner has raised the following contentions :-(1) The order of detention has been mechanically passed withoutapplication of mind to the relevant facts and circumstances. (2) The conclusion of the detaining authority that the detenuis likely to be released on bail is not based on any material onrecord and it is merely the ipse dixit of the detaining authority.4. While amplifying the first ground, learned counsel forthe petitioner has pointed out that as per the document available at Page No.137 of the booklet, the sponsoring authority has indicatedthe alleged involvement of the detenu in J-3 Police StationCr.No.1922/2005 and J-3 Police Station Cr.No.1923/2005, which wereregistered under Section 384 IPC. However, no material had beenplaced before the detaining authority nor there is any reference tothose cases in the grounds of detention which would amount to non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.
Similarly it is contended that, while noticing about the adversecases, it has been indicated as if offences under Section 379 IPChad been committed and chargesheet had been filed in Cr.Nos.44, 45,65, 66 and 68 of 2006, but the relevant documents, namely, thechargesheet, mahazar, etc., in these cases indicate that offenceunder Section 392 had been committed in all such cases, which was agraver offence. It has been contended that "this vital factor wasnot considered by the detaining authority who has mechanicallysigned the papers". Similarly it has been stated that the remandreport available at Page No.136 of the booklet indicates that thedetenu was arrested on 11.9.2006, confession was recorded at 8.10hours and watch was recovered in respect of Cr.No.1323/2005 at 9.00hrs. "But no such crime was shown against the detenu and the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ detaining authority without considering this vital factors ... hasmechanically signed the paper.
" It is further specificallycontended in the grounds of detention and submitted at the time ofhearing that the documents at Page Nos.9, 17, 26, 35, 44, 53, 64 and70 clearly indicate that the detenu was produced in respect ofseveral criminal cases under P.T. Warrant on 31.10.2006 and thecases were adjourned to 14.11.2006 and the detenu was produced fromthe prison under AR escort and sent back to jail, but whileconsidering the possibility of coming out on bail, the detainingauthority has not considered the fact that the detenu had beenremanded in connection with several cases other than the ground casewhich would show non-application of mind on the part of thedetaining authority.
A detention order is essentially passed on thesubjective satisfaction of the detaining authority on the materialsproduced before such authority. Since the order of detention hasthe effect of affecting the liberty of a person, detaining authorityis required to consider carefully the materials on record beforepassing any order of detention and it is not expected that an orderof detention is mechanically signed by the detaining authority.
It is no doubt true that the detaining authority hasreferred to eight adverse cases, but the booklet furnished beforethe detaining authority by the sponsoring authority clearlyindicates about the alleged involvement of the detenu in three othercrimes. It is no doubt true that the alleged involvement of thedetenu in those crimes in addition to the adverse cases noticedwould obviously strengthen the case for passing an order ofpreventive detention. But the fact that the detaining authority hasnot at all made any reference to those cases is indicative of non-application of mind to a very vital aspect. Similarly it isapparent that the detenu was produced under P.T. Warrant and thematerials prima facie indicate that he had been remanded in severalcases. However, the order of detention, ultimately signed by thedetaining authority, does not indicate about the awareness of thedetaining authority relating to such relevant facts.
Learned counsel appearing for the State has tried toexplain before us that the detenu had been released on bail in suchcases and therefore non-reference to those cases in the grounds ofdetention cannot be construed as non-application of mind.
It is of course true that the detenu has been releasedon bail in those cases and may be the detenu, if released on bail inthe ground case, need not file any formal application in otheradverse cases, but would merely file a petition to recall the P.T.Warrant and execute a bail bond to be released on bail. However, one would ordinarily expect the detaining authority to notice all https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ such relevant aspects. In the above context, the contention of thecounsel for the petitioner is that the adverse cases, as per thenarration in the grounds of detention, indicate as if the offenceunder Section 379 IPC had been committed in five adverse casesalready indicated whereas the chargesheets filed clearly indicatethat offence under Section 392 IPC had been committed. He hasfurther submitted that this aspect also cannot be considered to beimmaterial, as, if the detaining authority would have noticed thatchargesheet had been filed in five cases under Section 392 IPC,which is a much serious offence as compared to 379 IPC., may be theconclusion of the detaining authority that the detenu is likely tobe released on bail in the ground case could have been different.
This latter submission made by the learned counsel forthe petitioner cannot be simply wished away by stating that thechargesheeted offence under Section 392 being more serious, it isobvious that the detaining authority would have come to the sameconclusion. The question here is the possibility of the detenubeing released on bail in the ground case. It is quite well knownthat, while considering the question of bail, a court is alsoexpected to consider the past background of the accused and if it isfound that the accused is already involved in several serious cases, the Court may be disinclined to grant bail. It is no doubt true thatthe detaining authority is required to consider the possibility ofthe proposed detenu being released on bail on the basis of relevantmaterials on record. If it would be made aware to the detainingauthority that a proposed detenu is already involved in severalserious cases, the detaining authority while exercising hissubjective satisfaction may come to the conclusion that in such amurky background possibility of the detenu being released on bail isnon-existent. In other words, seriousness of the allegations in theprevious case is also a relevant consideration for the detainingauthority while arriving at a satisfaction on the possibility ofcoming out on bail in the ground case. Since the possibility ofcoming out on bail in the ground case is a matter or subjectivesatisfaction of the detaining authority (but of course on the basisof cogent materials on record), all the relevant factors arerequired to be considered by such detaining authority. The factthat in the present case the detaining authority was labouring undera misconception regarding the nature of allegation in many of theadverse cases was a relevant circumstance to be considered whiledealing with the question of possibility of coming out on bail andthe same having been not done, this would have the effect ofvitiating the ultimate satisfaction of the detaining authority.
Apart from the above, learned counsel for thepetitioner has also pointed out that in para 4 of the grounds ofdetention, the relevant portion of which is already extracted, theconclusion of the detaining authority that there is a real https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ possibility of the detenu being released on bail in connection withground case, is based on the mere ipse dixit of the detainingauthority and not on any material on record. In support of suchconclusion, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placedreliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in (2006)1 M.L.J.(Crl.) 539 (T.V. SARAVANAN alias S.A.R. PRASANNA VENKATACHARIARCHATURVEDI v. STATE, THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER) and the Fullbench decision of this Court in 2005(4) CTC 497 (K. THIRUPATHI v.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICTAT TIRUCHIRAPALI AND ANOTHER)
In our considered opinion, the ratio of the aforesaiddecision of the Supreme Court as well as the decision of the FullBench is clearly applicable to the present case and accordingly thedetention order is also required to be quashed on the said ground. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.dpkTo1.The Secretaryto Government, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat Chennai 600 009.2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8.3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.4. The SuperintendentCentral Prison, Chennai.5. The Joint Secretary to GovernmentPublic (Law and order) Fort St. George, Chennai. HCP.NO.143/2007NSM (CO)kk 20/7
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Tamil Nadu Act; Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss. 307, 336, 379, 380, 384, 392, 506(ii).
Which court decided this case, and when?
Madras High Court, on 09 Jul 2007. The bench was P K MISRA, R BANUMATHIHABEAS CORPUS.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.