High Court · 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 06.01.2009Coram :The Hon’ble Mr. Justice ELIPE DHARMA RAOandThe Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.TAMILVANANH.C.P.No.1313 of 2008 A.Manikandan @ Toyyamani .. Petitionervs.1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode. .. RespondentsPetition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India toissue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating tothe order passed by the second respondent in Cr.M.P.No.5/2008 C1,dated 28.02.2008 and quash the same and direct the respondents hereinto produce the detenu A.Manikandan @ Toyyamani before this Court andset him at liberty.For Petitioner : Mr.M.BoopathyFor Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public ProsecutorO R D E RS.TAMILVANAN, JThe Habeas Corpus Petition has been preferred by thepetitioner / detenu, challenging the order of detention, dated28.02.2008 passed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of1982. 2. As per the detention order, it is seen that there are fiveadverse cases registered against the detenu. The first case inCr.No.384 of 2005 on the file of the Erode Town Police Station was https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered, punishable under Sections 324, 506 (ii) IPC for theoccurrence that had taken place on 14.03.2005. The second case wasregistered in Cr.No.31 of 2006 on the file of the Erode North PoliceStation, punishable under Sections 147, 148, 449, 302 IPC for theoccurrence that had taken place on 12.01.2006. The third case wasregistered in Cr.No.320 of 2006 on the file of the KarungalpalayamPolice Station, punishable under Section 294 (b) IPC for theoccurrence that had taken place on 18.06.2006. The fourth case wasregistered in Cr.No.128 of 2007 on the file of the KarungalpalayamPolice Station, punishable under Sections 147, 341, 294 (b) and 323IPC, for the occurrence that had taken place on 12.03.2007. The fifthadverse case was registered in Cr.No.821 of 2007 on the file of theKarungalpalayam Police Station, punishable under Sections 324, 323and 506 (ii) IPC for the occurrence that had taken place on12.12.2007. 3. As per the ground case, on 08.02.2008 at about 1 p.m, whenthe defacto complainant, S.Kumar and his friend one Amanullah werestanding nearby a bunk shop, opposite to Registrar Office atKarungalpalayam, Erode, the detenu who came there, took a knife fromhis waist portion and asked both of them to hand over money in theirpossession, then took out Rs.100/-, that was available in the shirt-pocket of the defacto complainant and also got a gold ring, weighing¼ sovereign from the defacto complainant, however, the other personhad no money or jewel, while, he shouted for rescue, the detenuthreatened the defacto complainant and other people by showing aknife and breaking cool drinks bottle, whereby created panic. On thecomplaint given by the defacto complainant, the case in Cr.No.91 of2008 on the file of the Karungalpalayam Police Station was registeredunder Sections 341, 392 and 506 (ii) IPC. On 08.02.2008 at about17.30 hrs, when the Inspector of Police, attached to Karungalpalayampolice station was attending his duty at the Cauvery check post, hegot reliable information and proceeded to Kaverikarai burial ground,along with the witnesses. On seeing the party, the detenu who wasfound there, attempted to run away from the said place, however, theInspector of Police caught hold of him along with the help of hispolice party. On enquiry, he admitted his guilt that on 08.02.2008 atabout 1 p.m, he threatened the public by showing a knife and robbedthe cash and gold ring from the defacto complainant, then theproperties were recovered from him and he was arrested and remandedto Judicial custody. Considering the various adverse cases and theground case, he was detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by theDetaining Authority, since his activities were prejudicial to themaintenance of public order.4. The petitioner has challenged the detention order on theground that he had not moved bail application before any competentcourt, hence, the averments of the Detaining Authority, that there https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is incorrect.However, the court is of the view that when a person is arrested andremanded to custody, it is his right to move the competent court, byseeking bail at any time, hence, merely on the ground that the detenuhad not filed any bail application, it cannot be argued that therewas no likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, theground raised by the detenu is not legally sustainable. Though thepetitioner / detenu has stated that there was unexplained delay forconsidering the representation, the same has not been specificallystated with relevant dates either in the affidavit filed by him or inthe arguments advanced by his counsel.5. On a perusal of the detention order and the materialssupplied to the detenu, as rightly contended by the learnedAdditional Public Prosecutor, it is seen that the detention order andcopies of all relied on documents were furnished to the detenu withinfive days and there is no delay in considering the representationmade by the detenu. It is seen that the detention order was dulyintimated to his family members and the documents show thatMs.Kavitha, sister of the detenu had sent telegram to variousauthorities, even prior to the detention order.6. Mr.M.Boopathy, learned counsel appearing for the petitionersubmitted that the fifth adverse case is a foisted case. According tohim, in the English version, it is stated that Thiru Mani aliasManikandan alias Toyyamani and his accomplice caused blood injuriesof one Thiru Arulkumar by knife and aruval due to previous enimity,but in the Tamil version, it is stated that Thiru Mani aliasManikandan alias Toyyamani and his accomplices caused blood injuriesof one Thiru Arulkumar by knife and aruval due to previous enimity. 7. As contended by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, thename of the detenu has been specifically stated in the FIR, relatedto the fifth adverse case and further, the five adverse cases pendingagainst the petitioner would show that he is habituated in committingcrimes and therefore, the word accomplice in the English version,stated in plural in the Tamil version is no way prejudicial to theright of the detenu. 8. In order to detain a person as a "Goonda" under Section 2 (f)of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers,Drug Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Forest Offendersand Slum-Grabbers Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), the personeither by himself or as a member of or leader of a gang, habituallycommits, or attempts to commit or abets the commission of offences,punishable under Chapter XVI or Chapter XVII or Chapter XXIIof the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, as shown in thedetention order, there are five adverse cases pending against the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ petitioner / detenu, apart from the ground case. The DetainingAuthority has got subjective satisfaction, based on the materialsplaced before him that the activities of the detenu were prejudicialto the maintenance of public order.9. Considering the detention order and the materials availableon record, we are of the view that the order has been passed by theDetaining Authority, only after considering the materials and havingsubjective satisfaction. There is no illegality or violation of anymandatory provision to set aside the impugned order and therefore,the Habeas Corpus Petition fails and is liable to be dismissed.10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is dismissed. Sd/-Asst. Registrar./true copy/Sub Asst. Registrar.tsvnTo1. The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District, Erode. 3. The Joint Secretary, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. H.C.P.No.1313 of 2008 KU {CO}TP/20.1.2009