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.718 of 2011V.Marimuthu: PetitionerVs.

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

The District Magistrate and District Collector, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar.

The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai. : RespondentsPRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of Indiato issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus for calling for the entire records connected with the Detention Order of the second respondent inCr.M.P.No.20 of 2011, dated 10.08.2011, and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner, byname, V.Marimuthu S/o.Vellaisamy, aged about 24 years, detained in Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner: Mr.R.AlagumaniFor Respondents: Mr.A.Ramar Additional Public ProsecutorO R D E R[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J]The petitioner, by name V.Marimuthu S/o.Vellaisamy, has been detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Prevention of DangerousActivities of Boot-leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and VideoPirates Act, 1982 (in short "Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), on the orders of the second respondent, by his proceedings in Cr.M.P.No.20 of 2011, dated10.08.2011.

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 hissatisfaction that there was an imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail came up for consideration. More precisely, the said question was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in IrusammalVs. State of Tamilnadu, reported in [(2008) 3 MLJ (Crl.) 1533]. InParagraph Nos.3 and 5, the Division Bench has held 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. Thedetaining authority has no reason to observe that a bail application was likely to be filed before the same or higherCourt when the bail application filed by the detenu was since pending and therefore, this clearly speaks of non-applicationof 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. Butif 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 neither morally acceptable nor legally sustainable and may even justify the award of https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3compensation. 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 impugnedDetention Order without application of mind. As has 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 is to be strictly interpreted and no allowance could be given to the Detaining Authority for the lapses committed by him. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the impugned Detention Order cannot be sustained, and therefore, the impugned Detention Order is liable to be quashed.