High Court · 2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED: 12.02.2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.MISRAandTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.MOHAN RAMHabeas Corpus Petition No.1188 of 2006K.P.Jayaraman.. Petitioner-Vs.-1. The District Magistrate and District Collector Villupuram District Villupuram.2. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9... RespondentsPrayer.:-Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directingthe respondents to produce the detenu Parthiban (son of K.P.Jayaraman)'s body (now confined in Central Prison at Cuddalore) in this Courtand set him at liberty forthwith and also to call for the records andto set-aside the order of detention issued by the first respondentherein in C2/40094/96 dated 06.09.2006.For Petitioner : No appearance.For Respondents : Mr. M.Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor- - -O R D E RK.MOHAN RAM, J.Learned counsel for the petitioner was absent. We have heard thelearned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents.2.The order of preventive detention made under the Tamil NaduAct 14 of 1982 passed against the detenu on the ground that he is agoonda is in question in the above Habeas Corpus Petition. The above https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu.3. In the grounds of detention, Villupuram Taluk Police Station,Crime No.606 of 2006 registered against the detenu and others foroffences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 506 (ii) and 302 of the IndianPenal Code has been referred to. In the grounds of detention, areference has also been made to the ground case registered inVillupuram Taluk Police Station in Crime No.614 of 2006 wherein it isalleged that the detenu had committed offences under Sections 332, 506(ii) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code. In paragraph 5 of the groundsof detention, the Detaining Authority has observed as follows:-"5. I am aware that Thiru.Parthiban son of Jayaramanis in remand in Central Prison, Cuddalore in Cr.No.614 of 2006 of Villupuram Taluk Police Station andhas not filed any bail application before the lowercourt or in the High Court till date. However I amaware that, there is a real possibility of his comingout on bail by filing a bail application before thesame court or higher court, since in similar casesbail are granted by the courts after a lapse of time.If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in suchfuture activities which will be prejudicial to themaintenance of public order. Further the recourse tonormal criminal law will not have the desired effectof, effectively preventing him from indulging in suchactivities which are prejudicial to the maintenance ofPublic Order. On the material placed before me, I amsatisfied that the said Thiru.Parthiban son ofJayaraman is a "Goonda" and that there is a compellingnecessity to detain him in order to prevent him fromindulging such further and in future which areprejudicial to the maintenance of public order underthe provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982."4. A perusal of the above observation shows that the DetainingAuthority has made a reference to the fact that the detenu has beenremanded by the Judicial Custody in connection with the ground case,namely, Crime No.614 of 2006. However, when admittedly the detenu wasalso in custody in connection with the second adverse case, viz.,Villupuram Taluk Police Station in Crime No.606 of 2006 wherein a casehas been registered against the detenu and others under Sections 147,148, 341, 506 (ii) and 302 of the Indian Penal Code is punishable withdeath sentence, therefore it is apparent that the allegation in theadverse case is more serious when compared to the allegations in theground case.5. In the above said factual background, we are of the consideredview that the Detaining Authority has not applied his mind to therelevant facts and circumstances before coming to the conclusion that https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ there was an imminent possibility of the detenu being released onbail.6. In this context, it will be useful to refer to a decisionrendered in Habeas Corpus Petition No.841 of 2006, wherein the orderof detention was quashed by an order dated 21.11.2006. In the saidorder, it is observed as follows:-"4.The learned counsel appearing for the State alsoplaced reliance on the decision reported in 2006 (2)MLJ (CRL) 592 (SIVAKUMAR VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PROHIBITION AND EXCISEDEPARTMENT AND ANOTHER). In the said judgment, thedecision reported in 2006 (3) CTC 650 (REVATHY VS.STATE OF TAMILNADU) has been referred to, wherein it isobserved that if the Detaining Authority is aware ofthe fact that the person is in remand in both thecases, where the alleged offence in the adverse case isless serious than the offence in the ground case, itcannot be said that there is any non application ofmind. We do not think that there is really a conflictbetween two decisions, inasmuch as in the latter case,the alleged offence in the adverse case is less seriousand therefore, there was no question of non applicationof mind, as observed by the Division Bench. On theother hand, it is very much evident from the discussionthat where the offence alleged in the adverse case isequally serious or more serious, the fact that theperson is in remand in connection with equally or moregrave offence is not brought to the notice of theDetaining Authority, is a factor, which vitiates thesubjective satisfaction." 7. In the instant case, as pointed out by us, the offencesallegedly committed by the detenu and others in the adverse case aremore serious in nature, but the Detaining Authority has not at allmade any reference to the fact that the detenu was in remand in thatcase. Therefore, we are of the view that the subjective satisfactionarrived at by the detaining authority is vitiated. Hence the order ofdetention is liable to be quashed and accordingly the same is quashed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The detenu shall be released forthwith, unless he is required inconnection with any other case. The Habeas Corpus Petition isallowed.srkSd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrarTo1. The District Magistrate and District Collector Villupuram District, Villupuram.2. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.3. The Public Prosecutor High court, Madras.4. The SuperintendentCentral Prison, Cuddalore.5. The Joint Secretry to Govt. of Tamilnadu Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Madras-9.Pre-Delivery Order in H.C.P.No.1188 of 2006ts(co)bp/19.2