Krishnamoorthy v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.08.2015
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN H.C.P.No.1106/2015 Krishnamoorthy [ PETITIONER ] Vs 1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI - 9.
2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VELLORE DISTRICT VELLORE [ RESPONDENTS ] This Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the records relating to the order of detention C3.D.O.NO.38/2015 dated 10/04/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the detenue PETITIONERS SON NAMELY JAGADEESAN @ BABU AGED 31 YRS who is presently detained in the Central Prision VELLORE DT to be produced before this Hon`ble court and set at liberty.
For petitioner :
Mr.D.Prasanna For respondents :
Mr.M.Maharaja ` Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C3.D.O.No.38/2015 dated 10.04.2015, whereby the detenu/the son of the petitioner by name Jagadeesan @ Babu, Male, aged 31 years, son of Krishnamoorthi, was ordered to be detained 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) branding him as a "Goonda".
2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.D.Prasanna, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.86/2015, 88/2015, 89/2015 and 90/2015 registered by the Latteri Police Station and though the said factum of the remand of the detenu in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.86/2015, 88/2015, 89/2015 and 90/2015 has been reflected in the grounds of detention, more particularly in paragraph 5 of the Detention order, it is not stated by the Detaining Authority as to whether the detenu has filed any bail applications in the said cases or not or whether the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file any bail applications and no material is furnished by the Detaining Authority to that effect.
This is indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and hence, submitted that the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. 4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.
5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.
6.As could be evidenced from the Grounds of Detention furnished before us, the detenu was arrested in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.86/2015, 88/2015, 89/2015 and 90/2015 registered by Latter Police Station. Though the factum of remand of the detenu in the adverse case Nos.1 to 4, viz., in Cr.Nos.86/2015, 88/2015, 89/2015 and 90/2015, has been reflected in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention, only a reference has been made in respect of the ground case where the bail application filed by the detenu was pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order before the court concerned. When nothing has been stated about filing of any bail applications by the detenu or by his relatives in the said adverse case Nos.1 to 4, it is not known whether the detenu has been released on bail in those cases or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said adverse cases. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order
in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order.
7.It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. 8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds. 9.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst.Registrar (LA ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar cse To 1 THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT FORT ST GEORGE CHENNAI 2 THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE VELLORE DISTRICT VELLORE 3.
The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4.
The Superintendent of Central Prison Vellore.
5.
The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai -9.
H.C.P.No.1106/2015 ca(co), kra(26/08)