Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M.Subramaniam, R.Sakthivel, JJ.
Durga - Petitioner
Versus
The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department and ors. - Respondents
H.C.P.No.1836 of 2024
Decided On : 23-08-2024
HABEAS CORPUS - PREVENTIVE DETENTION - The court held that the preventive detention order against Arul was illegal as the nature of the crimes (theft of two-wheelers) did not justify such detention under the preventive detention law. The court emphasized that mere registration of criminal cases is insufficient for preventive detention, and there must be a clear likelihood of causing a breach of public order, which was not established in this case. Consequently, the detention order was set aside.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ of habeas corpus challenging a preventive detention order against Arul, who was detained for theft-related offenses. The petitioner argued that the nature of the offenses did not warrant preventive detention.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the grounds for detention were insufficient, as the nature of the offenses could be addressed through regular penal procedures rather than preventive detention. The court noted that the detaining authority failed to demonstrate a genuine threat to public order.
Issues: Whether the preventive detention order was justified given the nature of the offenses and the requirements under the preventive detention law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that preventive detention requires a clear demonstration of a likelihood of causing a breach of public order, which was not present in this case. Mere registration of criminal cases does not suffice to invoke preventive detention laws.
Result: The court set aside the preventive detention order and directed the immediate release of Arul unless he was required in connection with another case.
ORDER :
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order B3/D.O.No.52/2024 dated 08.07.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce namely Arul son of Srinivasan, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore, before this Court and set at liberty.
The preventive detention order passed by the second respondent dated 08.07.2024 is sought to be assailed in the present habeas corpus petition.
2. The ground case and three adverse cases relied on are registered under Section 379 of IPC. All the criminal cases registered are relating to stealing of two wheelers. Three adverse cases also relating to theft of two wheelers and the ground case also similar in nature.
3. The veracity and nature of the crime both in ground case and adverse case would be insufficient to detain a person under preventive detention law. Such cases can be dealt with under the penal law and the Police Authorities have to file a charge sheet and proceed with the trial as expeditiously as possible in such cases. In the event of grant of bail by the Courts, the Police may file an application seeking cancellation of bail or in alternate request the Court to impose certain stringent conditions, so as to improve surveillance about the conduct of these kinds of offenders, instead keeping under preventive detention law would not result in any benefit to the State and it will cause financial burden to the State.
4. Therefore, the detaining Authority should borne in mind that the genuinty of the ground is visible for detaining a person under preventive detention law. Mere registration of a criminal case would not constitute a ground to invoke Act 14 of 1982. Likelihood of causing breach of public order, which is a essential ingredient, which is to be satisfied and materials available on record must also lead to a reason to believe that such ground cases.
5. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, the detention order passed by the second respondent in proceedings No.B3/D.O.No.52/2024 dated 08.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz.,Arul son of Srinivasan, aged about 32 years, now confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.
Preventive detention cannot be justified solely on the basis of registered criminal cases; there must be a clear and present danger to public order.
Preventive detention requires a clear and justifiable connection between the individual's actions and a threat to public order, beyond merely having a criminal case registered against them.
Preventive detention must be based on a clear and proximate threat to public order, and reliance on outdated or irrelevant cases is insufficient to justify such detention.
Preventive detention must be justified by a clear and immediate threat to public order, and reliance on remote past cases is insufficient to uphold such detention.
Preventive detention must be justified by a direct and proximate connection to the likelihood of a breach of public order; reliance on remote past cases is insufficient.
Preventive detention requires a clear nexus between the grounds for detention and the likelihood of future offenses, not mere assumptions.
The unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can render a preventive detention order invalid.
The absence of the alleged offense of Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code impaired the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in issuing the preventive detention order, leading to its di....
The unexplained delay between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention can invalidate a preventive detention order.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to establish a 'live and proximate link' between the grounds of detention and the purpose of detention, and the unacceptability of ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
