Judgment · High Court
Case at a glance
Outcome
Allowed
In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in hisproceedings, in M
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 2222. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas CorpusPetition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned Order of Detention lacks application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the…
Judgment
1BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURTDATED: 30.11.2011CORAM:THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDRENANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHUHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.663 of 2011 Issaikkiduraichi: PetitionerVs.
The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
The Superintendent of Police, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. : RespondentsPRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the Detention Order of the second respondent inM.H.S.No.38 of 2011, dated 16.07.2011, and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner'sson by name Kumar @ Ramkumar, S/o.Singadurai, aged about 28 years detained in Palayamkottai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondents: Mr.A.RamarAdditional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J]The petitioner is the mother of one Kumar @ Ramkumar,S/o.Singadurai, who has been detained under Section 3(1) of the TamilPrevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act14/1982), on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in M.H.S.No.38 of 2011, dated 16.07.2011. Now, he has been lodged at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas CorpusPetition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned Order of Detention lacks application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, and therefore, according to the learned counsel, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be quashed. In order to substantiate his contention, the learned counsel would take us through the Detention Order, wherein the DetainingAuthority has stated that the detenu had not moved any BailApplication in the Ground Case. The said fact is not disputed. It is not the case of the Detaining Authority that the detenu had earlier been released on bail in similar cases. It is not also the finding of the Detaining Authority that in similar cases, the accused, who were similarly placed like that of the detenu, had been released on bail. It is not also the case of the Detaining Authority that in the very same Ground Case, any other accused was granted bail.
The impugnedDetention Order is silent as to whether there was an imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. In those circumstances, the learned counsel would submit that in the absence of any satisfaction on the part of the Detaining Authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, the Detention Order cannot be sustained. 3. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor is not in a position to dispute the above factual aspects. However, he would submit that it is the common knowledge that in similar cases, the accused are granted bail by the Courts. Therefore, according to him, there was an imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail. 4. We have considered the above rival submissions. The law, on this aspect, is no more res integra. On several occasions, the question as to whether it is necessary for the Detaining Authority to record his satisfaction that there was an imminent possibility of thedetenu being released on bail came up for consideration.
Moreprecisely, the said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in Irusammal Vs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in [(2008)3 MLJ (Crl.) 1533]. In Paragraph Nos.3 and 5, the Division Bench hasheld as follows:-"3. Heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Wehave gone through the counter and the relevant records. Thereason that weighed in the minds of the Division Bench in the earlier cases are fully applicable to the present case. The detaining authority has no reason to observe that abail application was likely to be filed before the same or higher Court when the bail application filed by the detenuwas since pending and therefore, this clearly speaks ofnon-application of mind. 5. The reason for detaining a person in these Acts is inter alia to safeguard the security of the State or maintain public order. This alone justifies executive detention without trial. When persons are detained on this ground the orders should be passed with extreme care and vigilance.
But if orders are passed which beg to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3quashed, then we may conclude that the authority is casual or careless. If so, even one hour of such detention is neither morally acceptable nor legally sustainable and may even justify the award of compensation. But routinely matters come up before us containing the same errors or defects. "5. Applying the above principles stated in the said Judgment to the facts of the present case, if we analyze, in the instant case also, the Detaining Authority has not recorded his satisfaction that there was imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by the Court. Therefore, we hold that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned Detention Order without application of mind. Ashas been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court, since a detenu, under this Act, is detained without trial, the law isto be strictly interpreted and no allowance could be given to the Detaining Authority for the lapses committed by him.
Operative part
For all these reasons, we are of the considered view that the impugned DetentionOrder cannot be sustained, and therefore, the impugned DetentionOrder is liable to be quashed. 6. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings, in M.H.S.No.38 of 2011, dated 16.07.2011, is quashed. The detenu, by name, Kumar @ Ramkumar, S/o.Singadurai, is ordered tobe set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case. Sd/-Assistant Registrar(T&P)/True Copy/Sub Assistant Registrar To1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Palayamkottai Central Prison, Tirunelveli District. 4. The Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. Copy to the Superintendent, Central Prison, Palayamkottai nbssk/21.12.2011 /6c -3p/- ORDER MADE INHABEAS CORPUS PETITION(MD).No.663 of 201130.11.2011
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and theimpugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent, in hisproceedings, in M
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.