K.Meena v. The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Chennai 600 009 & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 30-8-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANANH.C.P.No.693 of 2010K.Meena.. Petitioner vsState rep. By:1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and ExciseDepartment Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police (Chennai-Sub-Urban) St. Thomas Mount Chennai 600 016.3.The Inspector of Police M-5, Ennore Police Station Chennai 600 057... RespondentsHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directingthe respondents to produce the petitioner's son Ramu, S/o. Krishnan,Male, aged 28 years, and now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal,Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith bycalling for the records relating to the order No.34/BDFGISSV/2010dated 11.3.2010 on the file of the second respondent and set asidethe same.For Petitioner: Mr.K.MathanFor Respondents: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional PublicProsecutor ORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Ramu. She challengesan order of the second respondent made in No.34/BDFGISSV/2010 dated11.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act14/82 branding him as a Goonda. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andalso the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. TheCourt also looked into the materials available including the groundsof detention.3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoringauthority that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases namely(1) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.159/2002 under Sec.324 IPC; (2) M5 Ennore PSCr.No.32/2005 under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 324 IPC; (3) M5Ennore PS Cr.No.594/2007 under Sections 294(b) and 506(i) IPC; (4)M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.19/2010 under Sections 294(b), 384 and506(ii) IPC; (5) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384and 506(ii) IPC and (6) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.65/2010 under Sections364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in one ground case registered byM5 Ennore PS Cr.No.66/2010 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 392 r/w 397and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that took place on 6.3.2010, andhe was arrested on 7.3.2010 and remanded to judicial custody, thedetaining authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, formedan opinion that the detenu should be detained under Act 14/82 andhence passed the order which is under challenge.4.The learned Counsel while advancing the arguments raisedthree grounds. Firstly, he was actually remanded in the lastadverse case and also in the ground case on the very day, and he hasnot moved any bail application; but it is stated by the authoritythat there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail.Secondly, no special report was actually filed by the sponsoringauthority before the detaining authority. Thirdly, he was shownarrest in respect of Crime Nos.19/2010, 64/2010, 65/2010 and 66/2010registered by the very same police station as shown in page No.58 ofthe booklet. When the remand order was made as found in page 37 ofthe booklet, it was pertaining to Crime No.66/2010 and the remandreport in respect of the other three crime numbers was not placed.It is also not known whether the remand was actually made in theother two cases or not. 5.Added further the learned Counsel that in paragraph 2 of theorder, while the authority has stated that he was aware of the factthat the detenu was in remand in Crime No.66/2010, he has not evenwhispered that in respect of the other cases in Crime Nos.19, 64 and65/2010, he was under remand or not so; that under thecircumstances, all would clearly indicate the non-application ofmind on the part of the authority; that apart from that, theauthority could not have arrived at the subjective satisfaction asone required in law, on the basis of the materials placed beforehim, and hence it has got to be set aside.6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor onthe above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on thesubmissions made.7.It is not in controversy that the detenu is involved in sixadverse cases and one ground case as referred to above. As rightlypointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the arrestwas actually shown in Crime Nos.19, 64, 65 and 66/2010 on 7.3.2010, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ and he was also produced before the Court. The arrest memo as foundin page No.58 of the booklet, would clearly indicate that he wasshown arrest in all the four crime numbers, but when the remandorder was made as per the order of the Court as found in page 37 ofthe booklet, it would refer only to the ground case in CrimeNo.66/2010, and it does not whisper that whether any order of remandwas made in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010. Thus whether he wasremanded in Crime Nos.19, 64 and 65 of 2010 remained unknown. Itremains to be stated that all the materials in that regard wereactually not placed before the detaining authority. That apart, inparagraph 4 of the impugned order, the authority has stated that "Iam aware that Thiru. Ramu is in remand in M-5, Ennore Police StationCrime No.66/2010." From the very reading of this, it would be quiteclear that the authority has stated that he was aware of the factthat the detenu was remanded to judicial custody in CrimeNo.66/2010, but has not referred to the other three Crime Nos.19, 64and 65 of 2010. All would clearly indicate that the necessarydocuments which were relied upon by the sponsoring authority, werenot placed before the detaining authority. 8.Added further, he has not moved for bail in the ground casein Crime No.66/2010; but the authority has stated that there was areal possibility of his coming out on bail, and it was without anymaterial, much less cogent material as the law would require.Therefore, both the above grounds, in the considered opinion of theCourt, are available to the petitioner to set aside the order.9.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed settingaside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directedto be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required inconnection with any other case.nsvSd/-Asst. Registrar//True Copy//Sub Asst. RegistrarTo:1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and ExciseDepartment Chennai 600 009.2.The Commissioner of Police (Chennai-Sub-Urban) St. Thomas Mount Chennai 600 016. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Inspector of Police M-5, Ennore Police Station Chennai 600 057.4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.666.The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9.BVN(CO)SR/6.9.2010H.C.P.No.693 of 2010