RadhaW/o. Ramu v. The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 08-08-2007CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. MISRAANDTHE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. BANUMATHIHABEAS CORPUS PETITION NO.312 OF 2007RadhaW/o. Ramu.. Petitioner Vs.1. The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. 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 to call for the recordspertaining to the order of detention No.33 dated 30.1.2007, passedby the second respondent and set aside the same and direct therespondents to produce the detenu Sankar, S/o. Ramar, now confinedin Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set himat liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.N. Duraisamy for Mr.G. RamakrishnanFor Respondents: Mr.M. Babu Muthu Meeran Addl. Public Prosecutor- - -O R D E RP.K. MISRA, JMother of the detenu has filed this Habeas CorpusPetition challenging the order of detention dated 30.1.2007, whichhas been passed on the allegation that detenu is a Goonda.2. Detenu came to the adverse notice of the police in twoadverse cases, one is R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Cr.No.63/2007registered under Section 392 IPC., and the other is R-7 K.K. Nagar https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Police Station Cr.No.63/2007 registered under Section 397 IPC.Both the cases had occurred on the very same day and, at the timeof passing the detention order, were still under investigation.The order of detention has been passed on the basis of theoccurrence dated 11.1.2007. It is alleged that offence underSections 341, 336, 397 and 506(2) IPC have been committed and casehas been registered as R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station Cr.No.68 of2007.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised thefollowing contentions :-(1) In the Tamil order of detention, which is served on thedetenu, date "30" has not been indicated at the top right handside corner of the order and, therefore, it was not possible forthe detenu, who knows only Tamil, to find out the actual date oforder of detention.(2) Conclusion of the detaining authority that there waspossibility of detenu being released on bail is not based on anymaterial on record and it is the mere ipse dixit of the detainingauthority and, therefore, the detention order is to be quashed.(3) There has been unnecessary and unexplained delay indisposal of the representation made on behalf of the detenu.4. So far as the first contention is concerned, eventhough in the copies of detention order available in the bookletthe date "30" has been indicated in the Tamil version, we foundfrom the original order produced by the counsel for the petitionerthat the date "30" is not indicated at the top right hand sidecorner of the order. However, signature is dated as "30".Similarly, on the left side top corner Number "33" is also foundmissing. We find that in the English order of detention there isno such defect. According to us, omission to give date "30" atthe top of the order as well as "33" on the left hand side has notcaused any prejudice to the detenu. Moreover, the number "30",which is written in Arabic in English order of detention, is alsousually written in similar fashion while writing in Tamil. It isalso to be noticed that in the grounds of detention, at relevantplaces number "30" has been indicated and similarly it is clearlyindicated in para 2 of the grounds of detention that detenu hadbeen detained by virtue of the order dated 30.1.2007. Therefore,the mere inadvertent omission to give the date of order at some ofthe places in Tamil order of detention cannot be considered as aserious lapse so as to vitiate the order of detention,particularly it can be said that the detenu has not beenprejudiced in any manner.5. Next submission of the petitioner is to the effectthat the detaining authority has merely jumped to the conclusionthat possibility of the detenu coming out on bail is without any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ cogent material.6. In paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention, it hasbeen indicated :-"4. I am aware that Thiru Shankar is in remand inR-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.68/2007 and hehas moved bail applications before the PrincipalSessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P.Nos.854/2007 and855/2007 in R7 K.K. Nagar Police Station CrimeNos.68/2007 and 63/2007 respectively and both the bailapplications are pending. I am also aware that there isvery likely of his coming out on bail since in similarcases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or HighCourt. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge infurther activities, which will be prejudicial to themaintenance of pubic order. ..."7. Law is now well settled that even where the detenu isin custody in connection with some pending case, the order ofdetention can be passed, provided the detaining authority comes tothe conclusion regarding the imminent possibility of the detenubeing released on bail. [See A.I.R. 1964 S.C.334 (Rameshwar Shawv. District Magistrate, Burdwan), (1986)4 S.C.C. 416 (Binod Singhv. District Magistrate, Dhanabad),(2002)7 S.C.C. 129 (RajeshGulati v. Government of NCT of Delhi) (2006)1 M.L.J.(Crl.) 539(T.V. SARAVANAN alias S.A.R. PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI v.STATE, THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER),(2006) 9 SCC 711 (A. SHANTHI(SMT) v. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND OTHERS) and the Full Benchdecision in 2005(4) CTC 497 (K. THIRUPATHI v. DISTRICT MAGISTRATEAND DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT AT TIRUCHIRAPALIAND ANOTHER), including the H.C.P.No.1303 of 2006 disposed of on27.6.2007 and HCP.Nos.46, 52, 74, 79 and 131 of 2007 date19.6.2007].8. In the present case, the detaining authority hasreferred to the fact that bail applications have been filed, whichwere pending. Then the detaining authority came to the conclusionregarding possibility of coming out on bail "since in similarcases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or High Court". Itis worthwhile to notice that the detenu alleged to have committedoffence inter alia under Section 397 IPC in respect of two matterswherein bail applications have been filed. Keeping in view thenature of allegations and trend or orders passed by the Courts insuch matters, it is difficult to come to any different conclusion.The subjective satisfaction recorded by the detaining authority inthe peculiar facts and circumstances of the case cannot be said tobe baseless warranting interference by this Court. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

9. Last contention of the counsel for the petitioner,however, appears to be acceptable. The contention is relating toundue delay in disposal of the representation. From the chartproduced by the learned Addl. Public Prosecutor, we find thatrepresentation received on 28.2.2007 has been rejected on22.3.2007. No convincing explanation is forthcoming regardingintervening delay. In such view of the matter, we are constrainedto quash the order of detention.10. For the aforesaid reasons, the Habeas Corpus Petitionis allowed and the detention order is quashed and the detenu isset at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required inconnection with any other case.Sd/Asst.Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.RegistrardpkTo1. The Secretary to Govt., Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 9.2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai 8.3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Chennai.(In duplicate for Communication to Detenu)4.The Joint Secretary to Govt.Public (Law & Order)Fort St. George, Chnenai-9.5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.NSM (CO)km/17.8. HCP.NO.312/2007