Back
2010 Supreme(Mad) 4933
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN
Ramanujam
Versus
The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai & Others
H.C.P. No. 1333 of 2010
Decided On : 15-11-2010
For the Petitioner:N. Duraisamy for J.P. Vanashree, Advocates.
For the Respondents: M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the Detaining Authority to consider all relevant factors, including bail applications, in making a detention order under Act 14 of 1982.
Headnote:
Detention Order - Challenge by Father of Detenu - Act 14 of 1982 - Sections 394, 324, 506(ii), 3(1) of TNPPDL Act, 427, 332, 336, 307 - The court set aside the detention order due to non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in considering the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case.
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. The detenu was involved in multiple adverse cases and a ground case, and the Detaining Authority passed the detention order based on the subjective satisfaction that the detenu's activities were prejudicial to public order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Detaining Authority did not consider the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case, which indicated a non-application of mind and vitiated the detention order. As a result, the Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detention order was set aside.
Issues: The main issue was the non-consideration of the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case by the Detaining Authority, which led to the challenge and setting aside of the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority in considering the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case, which was a crucial factor in the detention order.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the detention order passed by the First Respondent was set aside, directing the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.
M. CHOCKALINGAM, J.
1. This Petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu challenging the order of the First Respondent in Memo No. 286/BDFGISSV/2009 in T.P.D.A. 9414 dated 13/05/2010, whereby his son Radhakrishnan 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 five Adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No. 1075 of 2009 registered by R-8, Vadapalani Police Station for the offence under Section 394 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No. 134 of 2010 registered by K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station fir the offences under sections 324 and 506 (ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No. 166 of 2010 registered by K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station for the offences under Section 3(1) of the TNPPDL Act read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No. 353 of 2010 registered by K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station for the offences under Section 427 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) of TNPP(D&L) Act; (v) Crime No. 300 of 2010 registered by K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 388 of 2010 registered by K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station for the offences under Sections 332, 506(ii), 336, 427 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 24/03/2010 and the detenu surrendered before XV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai on 25/03/2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of material 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, which, according to him was strong enough to set aside the detention order is that in paragraph 4 and page 5 of the detention order, it is stated that the detenu has not moved any Bail Application in the ground case, but it was not correct. As could be Been in page No. 162 of the booklet, the detenu has actually moved for bail before the Vacation Court in Crl. M.P. No. 4572 of 2010 and there was an order of dismissal of the Bail Application. Equally in page No. 173- Special Report, it was actually made a mention about the said dismissal order.
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 five 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.
7. In paragraph 4 of the detention order, it is stated as follows:
“4. I am aware that Thiru. Radhakrishnan is in remandin K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime Nos. 353/2010 and 388/2010 and he has not moved any Bail Application for K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Crime No. 353/2010 and 388/2010 so far. The Sponsoring Authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Radhakrishnan are taking action to take him on bail by filing Bail Application for K-8 ARumbakkam Police Station Crime Nos. 134/2010 and 166/2010 and K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No. 300/2010 and K-3 Aminjik
