Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4048
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN
Murugan @ Petrol Murugan
Versus
State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary & Another
H.C.P. Nos. 830, 831 of 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2010
For the Petitioner:Ms. Dr. S. Padma, L.Infant Dinesh, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The detention order can be set aside if the authority's observations lack basis or material, and if there is an absence of recorded statements from relevant parties.
Headnote:
Detention - Public Order - Act 14/82 - Sections 341, 323, 326, 294(b), 506(ii), 397, 336, 427, 384, 307 - The court set aside the detention order due to lack of basis or material for the authority's observation of a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and absence of recorded statements from relatives, making the order infirm.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of detention under Act 14/82, terming him as a Goonda, based on his involvement in multiple adverse cases. The detaining authority recorded subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the authority's observation of a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail lacked basis or material, and no recorded statements from relatives were available, rendering the order infirm.
Issues: The issues revolved around the authority's subjective satisfaction, the detenu's bail applications, and the absence of recorded statements from relatives.
Ratio Decidendi: The court set aside the detention order due to the authority's non-application of mind, lack of basis for the observation of a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and absence of recorded statements from relatives.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order of detention and directed the petitioner detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 23.1.2010, whereby the petitioner detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under the provisions of the Act.
2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases namely (1) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.666/2008 under Sections 341, 323, 326, 294(b) and 506(ii) IPC r/w 34 IPC; (2) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.289/2009 under Sec.397 of IPC and (3) B1 North Beach PS Cr.No.3/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC and also in a ground case in Crime No.9/2010 of B1 North Beach PS registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 384, 307 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 9.1.2010, and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the very same day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials placed, made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel Ms.S.Padma would submit that in the instant case, it was shown that he was involved in three adverse cases and one ground case; that the arrest was shown on 9.1.2010, in two cases in Crime Nos.3/2010 and 9/2010; that as far as Cr.No.3/2010 is concerned, he did not move any bail application; but, he moved a bail application in Cr.No.9/2010 before the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, and the same was dismissed on 19.1.2010, and thus it would be quite clear that on the day when the order came to be passed on 23.1.2010, neither an application was filed in Crime No.3/2010, nor an application was pending consideration in Crime No.9/2010 before any Court of criminal law; but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the petitioner coming out on bail; and that this was without any material, much less cogent material.
5. Added further the learned Counsel that the authority has also further observed in the grounds of detention that the relatives are taking steps to bail him out, but no material indicating that any statement of the relatives was recorded, was placed; that apart from that, the date of recording the statement is also not made known; that though a special report was alleged to have been made, it did not contain the date; that under the circumstances, the order has become inform, and hence it has got to be set aside on these grounds.
6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. As could be seen above, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda since he was involved in four cases mentioned above. On perusal of the materials, it would be quite clear that he has made an application for bail in Crime No.9/2010 which was registered by B1 North Beach PS under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 427, 384, 307 and 506(ii) IPC; but, he has not moved any bail application in Crime No.3/2010 registered by the very same police station. It is pertinent to point out that he moved the bail application before the Court of Session in Crime No.9/2010, and the same was also dismissed. Though it was referred to in the grounds of detention that the said bail application was dismissed, no date of dismissal was actually mentioned. Now, it is brought to the notice of the Court by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that actually the dismissal order was made on 19.1.2010. The order under challenge came to be passed on 23.1.2010, and thus it would be quite clear that the order of de
