Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4649
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
T. Murugan
Versus
The Government of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department & Another
H.C.P.No.1143 of 2010
Decided On : 27-10-2010
For the Petitioner:K. Murugan, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority must be based on cogent material to justify the detention under the Act 14/82 for activities prejudicial to public order.
Headnote:
Detention - Public Order - The court set aside the order of detention as the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order was found to be without basis or foundation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda based on his involvement in adverse cases. The detaining authority recorded subjective satisfaction that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the detaining authority's observation of a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was without basis, and the representation made by the detenu was not unduly delayed. Therefore, the order of detention was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be set at liberty.
Issues: The issues raised included the lack of a bail application in the adverse cases and the alleged non-consideration of the detenu's representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction must be based on cogent material and found that the observation of a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was without basis. The court also noted that there was no undue delay in considering the detenu's representation.
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.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 11.5.2010, whereby the petitioner/detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.
2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also looked into all the materials available.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the petitioner/detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) K10 Koyambedu PS Cr.No.627/2010 under Sec.392 IPC; (2) V7 Nolambur PS Cr.No.301/2010 and (3) V3 JJ Nagar PS Cr.No.318/2010 under Sec.392 IPC, and also in a ground case registered by K10 Koyambedu PS in Crime No.651/2010 under Sections 341, 323, 427, 397 and 506(2) IPC for an occurrence taken place on 22.4.2010, and he was remanded to judicial custody on the same day, and on scrutiny of the materials available, the detaining authority after recording a subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order, has made the order which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised two grounds. Firstly, bail application was not filed in the first adverse case registered under Sec.392 of IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 19.4.2010, and also in the ground case. But the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. Both the cases were registered for grave offences, and hence the said observation is without any basis. Secondly, he made a representation on 14.6.2010, and it was not at all considered.
5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor also on 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. As far as the first ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is concerned, the detaining authority even after recording that he has not moved any bail application so far in respect of the first adverse case and the ground case, has observed that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail which is without any basis or foundation or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. Under the circumstances, the order has become infirm.
7. As regards the second ground, it is represented by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State that it is true that there was a representation received by the Government on 28.6.2010, and the same was also disposed of on 14.7.2010, and thus there was no delay at all. Under the circumstances, though not the second ground is available to the petitioner, on the first ground, 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 unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
