Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4562
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
A. Siva & Others
Versus
The Secretary to Government & Others
H.C.P. Nos.1606, 1504, 1505, 1526 of 2010
Decided On : 22-10-2010
For the Petitioner:Siva Bharathi, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court emphasized the requirement for detention orders to be based on cogent materials and not merely on subjective impressions without any basis.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Public Order - The court set aside the detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as it found the Detaining Authority's observation without material and only an expression of impression without any basis or cogent materials.
Fact of the Case:
The detenu challenged the order of detention as a Goonda under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, based on his involvement in adverse cases and a ground case, claiming that the Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was without basis.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the Detaining Authority's observation to be without material and only an expression of impression without any basis or cogent materials, and thus set aside the detention order.
Issues: The issue revolved around the validity of the detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, based on the detenu's involvement in adverse cases and a ground case, and the contention that the Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was without basis.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of material and basis for the Detaining Authority's observation, leading to the setting aside of the detention order.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.202/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 12.4.2010, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
1. This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.202/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 12.4.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.
2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, 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 viz. (i) Crime No.89 of 2010 registered by R-1 Mambalam Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.97 of 2010 registered by R-1 Mambalam Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.341 of 2010 registered by E-3 Teynampet Police Station for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.349 of 2010 registered by E-3 Teynampet Police station for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 30.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the third adverse case and the ground case. But the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis.
5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to three adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
7. It is an admitted position that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the third adverse case and the ground case. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:-
"4. I am aware that Thiru. Siva is in remand in E-3 Teynampet Police Station Crime Nos.341/2010 and 349/2010 and he has not moved any bail application for E-3 Teynampet Police Station Crime Nos.341/2010 and 349/2010 so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Siva are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application for E-3 Teynampet Police Station Crime Nos.341/2010 and 349/2010 before the appropriate Court and since in a similar case registered under Section 392 IPC in D-6 Anna Square Police Station Crime No.109/2009 bail was granted by the XIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.739/2009. Similarly, in a case registered under Sections 341 and 307 IPC at E-2 Royapettah police Station Cr.No.382/2009, bail was granted in Crl.M.P. No.5266/2009 by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, within 20 days. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application for E-3 Teynampet Police Station Crime Nos.341/2010 and 349/2010 before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further, the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the ma
