Judgment · High Court

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.697 of 2011 Suren @ Surendran: PetitionerVs.

The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Dindigul District, Dindigul. 2. The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai.: RespondentsPRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the Detention Order of the second respondent in No.08 of2011, dated 06.08.2011 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner, by name Suren @Surendran, S/o.Saravanan, aged about 26 years detained in MaduraiCentral 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 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 proceedingsNo.08 of 2011, dated 06.08.2011.

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.

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.

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 quashed, then we may conclude that the authority is casual or careless. If so, even one hour of such detention is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3neither 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. 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.