Meena v. The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate of Cuddalore District Cuddalore & Ors.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 24-9-2010CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAMANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANANH.C.P.No.928 of 2010Meena.. Petitionervs1.The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate of Cuddalore District Cuddalore2.The State of Tamil Nadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 9... RespondentsHabeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of theConstitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling forthe records relating to the detention order dated 29.4.2010 passed bythe first respondent herein in his office Ref.C3/D.O./14/2010, quashthe same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's sonArul @ Arulpandi @ Arulpandiyan @ Arunpandian, aged 23, son of Mani,Karuppaiya Devar Illam, Sathya Street, Neyveli Main Road, Vadalur 607303, Cuddalore District, presently undergoing detention in theCentral Prison, Cuddalore, as a Goonda under Section 3(1) of theTamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, DrugOffenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, SandOffenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act 1982 before this Courtand set him at liberty.For Petitioner: Mr.P.ManiFor Respondent: Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional PublicProsecutorORDER(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)This petition challenges an order of detention made by thesecond respondent dated 29.4.2010, whereby the petitioner's son Arul@ Arulpandi @ Arulpandiyan @ Arunpandian was ordered to be detainedunder Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under theprovisions of the Act. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner andlooked into all the materials available and in particular, the orderunder challenge.3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendationmade by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in fouradverse cases namely (1) Vadalur PS Cr.No.251/08 under Sections 294,323 and 332 IPC; (2) Vadalur PS Cr.No.395/08 under Sections 448, 341,324, 323 and 506(ii) IPC; (3) Vadalur PS Cr.No.68/09 under Sections294, 323, 324 and 506(ii) IPC and (4) Vadalur PS Cr.No.172/2010 underSections 341, 294, 323, 324 and 307 IPC and also in a ground case inCrime No.173/2010 of Vadalur PS registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on20.4.2010, and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody onthe same day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materialsplaced, made the order under challenge after recording its subjectivesatisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial tothe maintenance of the public order.4.The learned Counsel advancing his arguments on behalf of thepetitioner, would urge that the bail application filed in the groundcase in Crl.M.P.No.1523/2010, was pending on the file of the SessionsDivision, Cuddalore; but the authority has passed the order on29.4.2010, observing that there was a real possibility of the detenucoming out on bail. The learned Counsel would further add that thefourth adverse case is shown as if it was committed on 19.4.2010;that the same was registered under Sections 341, 294, 323, 324 and307 of IPC; the ground case is shown to have been committed on20.4.2010, the very next day; that the arrest is also shown only inthe ground case and not in the said adverse case; and that when thearrest itself is not shown, there is no question of making any bailapplication that would arise; but the authority has not consideredany one of these aspects and has stated that there was a realpossibility of the detenu coming out on bail.5.Answering the above contentions, the learned Additional PublicProsecutor for the State would submit that it is true that he wasinvolved in four adverse cases and one ground case; that it is alsotrue that he made a bail application in Crl.M.P.No.1523/2010 pendingon the file of the Sessions Division; that in the earlier cases 1 to3, he moved for bail, and bail was granted, and under thecircumstances, the authority was perfectly correct in recording thatthere was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail; thatas far as the fourth adverse case was concerned, he was arrested, andall the documents pertaining thereto are all available in thebooklet; that they were all supplied to him; that under thecircumstances, the ground urged by the petitioner that in the fourthadverse case, the arrest was not shown was not correct, and hence thepetition has got to be dismissed.6.After hearing both sides, this Court is of the consideredopinion that the grounds brought to the notice of the Court by thepetitioner's side, have got to be applied to set aside the orderunder challenge. It is true that an order came to be passed by thedetaining authority after recording the subjective satisfaction thatthe activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the public order since he was involved in four adverse cases and oneground case. The fourth adverse case is shown to have been committedon 19.4.2010, while the ground case is shown to have been committedon 20.4.2010. The fourth adverse case was registered under Sections341, 294, 323, 324 and 307 IPC, and the ground case was registeredunder Sections 341, 294(b), 506(ii) and 307 IPC. Though it was urgedby the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that thematerials pertaining to the arrest in the fourth adverse case, weresupplied to the detenu, it was actually not reflected in the orderunder challenge, and hence this would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. 7.Apart from the above, as far as the ground case was concerned,a bail application was moved in Crl.M.P.No.1523/2010, and it was alsopending on the file of the Sessions Division, Cuddalore. Theimpugned order came to be passed on 29.4.2010. It is pertinent topoint out that the offence relating to Crime No.172 of 2010, wasshown to have been committed on 20.4.2010, and he was also arrestedon the same day. Hence he would have made the bail applicationbefore the Court of Session only subsequently, and it was alsopending. Within a short span of a week, the order came to be passedwherein the authority has stated that there was a real possibility ofhis coming out on bail. This was only an expression of theimpression of the authority without any material, much less cogentmaterial as the law would require, and hence both the grounds havegot to be applied to brand the order under challenge as infirm anddefective.8.Accordingly, the order of detention passed by the secondrespondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be set atliberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection withany other case.Sd/-Asst. Registrar//true copy//Sub Asst.RegistrarnsvTo:1.The District Collector andDistrict Magistrate of Cuddalore District Cuddalore2.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and ExciseDepartment Fort St. George Chennai 9. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore.4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.1 cc to Mr.P.Mani, Advocate, Sr.No.70781 H.C.P.No.928 of 2010NG {CO}TP/8.10.2010.