Back
2013 Supreme(Mad) 4221
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
V. Dhanapalan and R. Karuppiah, JJ.
Rajendran – Appellant
Vs.
State of Tamil Nadu – Respondent
Habeas Corpus Petition (MD) No. 792 of 2013
Decided On: 26.11.2013
Advocate Appeared
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: M. Saravanan
For Respondents/Defendant: C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor
Unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation of a preventively detained person is fatal to the continued detention and violates constitutional rights.
Headnote:
Delay - Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982 - Art. 22(5)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, wife of the detenu, sought to quash the detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982, citing inordinate delay in considering her representation, which she argued violated Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the delay in considering the petitioner's representation was unexplained and held that any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is fatal to the continued detention of the detenu.
Issues: The main issue was the inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation and its impact on the validity of the detention order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that the right of a preventively detained person to make a representation and have it considered expeditiously is a constitutional right under Art. 22(5), and any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering the representation is fatal to the continued detention of the detenu.
Final Decision: The Habeas Corpus Petition was allowed, and the impugned detention order was quashed, ordering the detenu to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
V. Dhanapalan, J.
1. The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers, and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) and detained under order of the second respondent passed in Cr. M.P. No. 18/Goonda/2013 dated 3-7-2013, has come before this Court to quash the order of detention passed by the second respondent. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
(See Table below)
2. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 16-6-2013 by the Emaneswaram Police, in Crime No. 67 of 2013 for offences under Sections 307, IPC r/w 5 of Explosives Act. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
3. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his arguments on the ground that there is an inordinate and unexplained delay in considering the petitioner's representation dated 15-7-2013, which has not been explained. Therefore, there is a deprivation of right guaranteed under Art. 22(5) of the Constitution of India and as such, the impugned order is vitiated on the ground of delay.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and we have also perused the records carefully.
5. In paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of detention, it has been stated as follows:
5. I am aware that Thiru. Sampath aged 27/13, S/o. Rajendran, Anna Nagar, Paramakudi, Ramanathapuram District has filed a bail petition in connection with ground case in Cr. No. 67/13 u/S. 307, IPC r/w 5 of Explosive Substances Act of Paramakudi Town Police Station as per Cr. M.P. No. 1637/2013 in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ramanathapuram and it is pending. Further the accused filed anticipatory bail petition in the adverse case in Cr. No. 128/10 u/Ss. 147,148, 294(b), 341, 324, 307 and 34, IPC, Cr. No. 13/12, u/Ss. 307, IPC r/w. 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act 1908 and4 of TNPPDL Act, 1984 of Paramakudi town Police station, Cr. No. 449/12 u/Ss. 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 302, IPC r/w.3 of TNPPDL Act of Paramakudi Town Police Station, Cr. No. 147/12 u/Ss. 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302, IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act of Emaneswaram Police Station, Cr. No. 58/2013, u/Ss. 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii), IPC of Emaneswaram in the Courts and anticipatory bail was granted. Another adverse cases the accused was filed bail petitions in connection with Cr. No. 204/07. u/Ss. 294(b), 323, 325, 427, 506(ii), IPC and 34, IPC, Cr. No. 220/10 u/Ss.294(b), 353, 506(i), IPC and 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Open Places Disfigurement Act 1959 of Paramakudi Town Police Station as per Cr. M.P. No. 3236/2007 and Cr. M.P. No. 4588/10 respectively in Judicial Magistrate Court, Paramakudi and the bail were granted to the
(Contd. on Col. 2)
S. no. Police Station Crime No. Sections of laws
1. Paramakudi Town Police Station 204/07 294(b), 323, 427 and 506 (ii) IPC
2. Paramakudi Town Police Station 128/10 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 307 IPC read with 34 IPC
3. Paramakudi Town Police Station 220/10 294(b), 353, 506(i), IPC and 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Open Places Prevention of Disfigurement Act.
4. Paramakudi Town Police Station 13/12 307 IPC read with 3, 4, 5 of Explosive Substances Act, 1908 and Section 4 of TNPPDL Act, 1984
5. Emaneswaram Police Station 147/12 147, 148, 323, 324, 307 and 302 IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act
6. Paramakudi Town Police Station 449/12 147, 148, 341. 294(b), 307, 302 IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act
7. Emaneswaram Police Station 58/12 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 506(ii) IPC
accused. If he is not detained under Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 he will indulge in such further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of
