Back
2011 Supreme(Mad) 103
2011 (1) MWN(Cr) 64
High Court of Judicature at Madras
M. CHOCKALINGAM & M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Balu @ Pattasu Balu
Versus
The State of Tamilnadu Rep. By its Secretary to Government & Another
H.C.P.No.2220 of 2010
Decided on : 07-01-2011
For the Petitioner: V. Parthiban, Amicus Curiae.
For the Respondents: V.R. Balasubramaniam, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The requirement of cogent material for inferring likelihood of release on bail in detention orders.
Headnote:
Detention - Goonda Act - 14 of 1982 - Sec. 457, 380, 379, 392, 397, 336, 506(ii), 341, 294(b) - The court set aside the detention order due to lack of cogent material and non-application of mind by the detaining authority. The court relied on the requirement of cogent material for inferring likelihood of release on bail as established in previous court decisions.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of detention under the Goonda Act based on his involvement in multiple adverse cases. The detaining authority ordered detention based on activities prejudicial to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detention order lacked sufficient material and the detaining authority did not apply its mind properly, leading to the order being set aside.
Issues: Lack of cogent material for detention, non-application of mind by the detaining authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The detaining authority must base the likelihood of release on bail on cogent material, as established in previous court decisions.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, setting aside the detention order and directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith.
M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent, the Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai, in No.526/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 18.9.2010, whereby the petitioner detenu was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982 terming him as a Goonda.
2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are looked into.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the petitioner detenu was involved in eight adverse cases namely (1) Sri Ramachandra Medical College PS Cr.No.100/2008 under Sections 457 and 380 of IPC; (2) R3 Ashok Nagar PS Cr.No.179/2009 under Sec.379 of IPC; (3) R3 Ashok Nagar PS Cr.No.194/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) G7 Chetpet PS Cr.No.18/2010 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC; (5) K7 ICF PS Cr.No.280/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (6) G7 Chetpet PS Cr.No.491/2010 under Sec.379 @ 392 IPC; (7) K7 ICF PS Cr.No.452/2010 under Sec.379 IPC and (8) K7 ICF PS Cr.No.486/2010 under Sec.379 IPC, and also in a ground case registered by G7 Chetpet PS in Crime No.546/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 28.8.2010, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the entire materials took the view that the detenu has indulged in such activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and hence he has got to be termed as a Goonda and passed the order under challenge.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel would submit that in the instant case, he was actually arrested in the sixth adverse case and also in the ground case on 28.8.2010; that the sixth adverse case was registered under Sec.379 IPC @ 392 IPC, and the ground case was registered under Sections 341, 294 (b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC; that while the matter stood thus, he did not move for bail in neither of these cases; but, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail; and that this observation made by the authority, was actually without material, much less cogent material.
5. Added further the learned Counsel pointing to the grounds of detention that the seventh adverse case was actually shown as Crime No.452/2010, which was registered by the K7 ICF PS on 14.8.2010; that contrarily, the eighth adverse case shown as
Crime No.486/2010, was registered by the same Police Station on 26.6.2010; that even if it is a mistake that has crept in, it would be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the authority; that under the circumstances, the authority should have called for a clarification from the sponsoring authority, but failed to do so, and hence the order is vitiated and it has got to be set aside.
6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. After looking into the available materials and hearing the submissions made, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the order of detention has got to be set aside for the following reasons.
8. Admittedly, the petitioner detenu was arrested on 28.8.2010, in the sixth adverse case and also in the ground case. Both these cases were admittedly registered under Sec.397 IPC @ 392 IPC and under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397, 336 and 506(ii) IPC respectively. But, he has not moved any bail application. It is actually found in the detention order itself. But, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that when the authority observes that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, it should be based on materials and also cogent materials. In order to fortify the same, this Court can rely upon the decision of the Apex
