Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4581
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Mrs. Sarala & Another
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu & Another
H.C.P. Nos.1441, 1458, 1485, 1496, 1567 of 2010
Decided On : 22-10-2010
For the Petitioner:A. Vatsala, C.C. Chellappan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The Detaining Authority's observation must be supported by material and cogent evidence as required by law.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge - Act 14 of 1982 - Indian Penal Code - Sections 379, 341, 323, 394, 427, 506(ii), 397, 294(b) - The court set aside the detention order as the Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was without basis or cogent materials as required by law.
Fact of the Case:
The father of the detenu challenged the detention order of his son, who was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under Act 14 of 1982, based on his involvement in multiple adverse cases and a ground case.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was without basis or cogent materials as required by law, leading to the setting aside of the detention order.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the detention order, the sufficiency of the grounds for detention, and the Detaining Authority's subjective satisfaction.
Ratio Decidendi: The Detaining Authority's observation lacked material and was without basis or cogent materials as required by law, 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.
(Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J)
1. This petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.163/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 24.03.2010, whereby his son Arun @ Mundakan Arun 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.1580 of 2008 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.1642 of 2008 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 394, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.269 of 2010 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.285 of 2010 registered by D-5 Marina police station for the offences under Sections 397, 506 (ii), 294(b), 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 9.3.2010 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. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter-alia would urge that though the detenu moved for bail in third adverse case and ground case in Crime Nos.269 and 285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318 and 2319 of 2010 respectively, the same were dismissed on 19.3.2010, but the detention order came to be passed on 24.3.2010, i.e. within a short span of five days. Apart from this, both the cases i.e. third adverse case and the ground case were registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. While the applications filed for bail were dismissed on 19.3.2010, there could not have been a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as found in the detention order, which is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority.
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 the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is an admitted position that though the detenu moved for bail in third adverse case and ground case in Crime Nos.269 and 285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318 and 2319 of 2010 respectively, the same were dismissed on 19.3.2010. Apart from this, both the cases i.e. third adverse case and the ground case were registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. While the applications filed for bail were dismissed on 19.3.2010 and no bail application was pending at the time of passing the detention order, there could not have been a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as found in the detention order. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:-
"4. I am aware that Thiru. Arun @ Mundakan Arun is in remand in D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 and he has moved bail application for D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318/201
