Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4658
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Dhanasekar
Versus
The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police & Another
H.C.P.No.1173 of 2010
Decided On : 28-10-2010
For the Petitioner:G. Paranthaman, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The court emphasized the importance of having sufficient material to support the grounds for detention and the need for authenticity and clarity in official reports and documents.
Headnote:
Detention - Public Order - The court set aside the order of detention on the grounds that there was no material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that there were discrepancies in the arrest report, leading to doubts about its authenticity.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged an order of detention branding him as a Goonda based on his involvement in adverse cases. The detaining authority recorded subjective satisfaction that the petitioner's activities were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and that there were discrepancies in the arrest report, leading to doubts about its authenticity. As a result, the court set aside the order of detention.
Issues: The issues raised included the lack of material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and discrepancies in the arrest report.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the order of detention was infirm due to the lack of material to support the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and discrepancies in the arrest report, which raised doubts about its authenticity.
Final Decision: The habeas corpus petition was allowed, setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody was required in connection with any other case.
(M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.)
1. This petition challenges an order of the second respondent dated 20.5.2010, whereby the petitioner/detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.
2. All the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) F5 Choolaimedu PS Cr.No.779/2010 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) K3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.506/2010 under Sec.379 IPC and (3) K3 Aminjikarai PS Cr.No.515/2010 under Sections 341 and 392 IPC and also in a ground case registered by K3 Aminjikarai PS in Crime No.521/2010 under Sections 341, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 22.4.2010, and he was arrested on the same day and on scrutiny of the entire materials, the detaining authority namely the second respondent herein has made the order under challenge after recording subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4. At the time of advancing arguments, the learned Counsel for the petitioner raised the following points:
(i) The petitioner has not moved any bail application in any one of the adverse cases or the ground case. That apart, all the cases were grave in nature; but the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. This was without any material whatsoever.
(ii) In Page 44 English version and in page 45 Tamil version of the arrest report, it is stated that the occurrence has taken place on 22.4.2010, and he was brought to the police station on arrest on 22.4.2010, and he was actually sent to the Court on 23.4.2010. But the report itself was signed by the Officer on 22.4.2010 itself. In such circumstances a doubt would naturally arise how such a report could be filed before the Court which it is actually prepared earlier. Under the circumstances, a clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority, but not done so. Hence it has got to be set aside.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
6. As could be seen above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge. Insofar as the first ground, admittedly, the petitioner/detenu has not moved any bail application in any of the cases before any Court of Criminal law. All the cases are of grave nature. But, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail which is without any material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Under the circumstances, the order has become infirm.
7. As regards the second ground, the arrest report as found in page 44 English version and in page 45 Tamil version, would indicate that the occurrence has taken place on 22.4.2010, and he was brought to the station that day and was actually sent to the Court on 23.4.2010. But it remains to be stated that the report itself was signed by the Investigating Officer on 22.4.2010 itself. In such circumstances, naturally a doubt would arise as to how such a report could be filed before a Court when it was actually prepared earlier. At that juncture, a clarification should have been called for by the detaining authority, but failed. Therefore, on the above two grounds, this Court is of the view that the order has got to be set aside.
8. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
