Tmt.V.Chinnamma @ Santhamma v. The District Collector And

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 19.08.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1180 of 2015 V.Chinnamma @ Santhamma W/o.Late Veerabathiran

...Petitioner/

Mother of the Detenue vs.

1. The District Collector and District Executive Magistrtae, Collectorate, Krishnagiri District.

2. State represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

...Respondents

Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to order of detention in S.C.No.18 of 2015 dated 09.04.2015 passed by first respondent, set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Lakshmipathy S/o.Veerapathirappa, aged 23 years TPDA No.4313, who is now detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner :

Mr.P.Anbarasan For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.] Petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the first respondent passed in S.C.No.18 of

2015 dated 09.04.2015.

2. The detenu came to adverse notice in Crime No.11 of 2014 on the file of Anchetty Police Station for offences u/s.302 and 380 IPC. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 05.02.2015, by the Anchetty Police Station, in Crime No.25 of 2015 for offence under Section 392 IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, which has affected the constitutional right of making an effective and purposeful representation to the authorities concerned, thereby vitiating the detention.

4. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the copy of the bail application in the similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was not supplied to the detenu.

5. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.

6. It is seen from paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention that in the similar case, viz., the accused was released on bail by the learned District Sessions Judge, Dharmapuri, in Crl.M.P.No.2921 of 2014 in respect of the case in Cr.No.209/2014 for offences u/s.302 and 379 IPC on the file of Karimangalam Police Station. On a perusal of the Booklet furnished by the prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the said bail application in such case; but the bail order of the said similar case has been furnished in page No.179 of the Booklet. The said bail application filed in such case was the document relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such document has not been supplied to the detenu, as it did not form part of the Booklet furnished by the prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail application and other documents in the similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order. This order is made only towards setting aside the order of

detention passed against the detenu herein. Any bail applications moved by the detenu in the ground case or in the adverse cases, necessarily would have to be considered by the Court concerned solely on merits uninfluenced by the order of this Court.

7. The Honourable Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty Vs. Union of India and another (1990-2-SCC-1) has observed thus:- "7. Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail applications and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired and if those had been considered, they would be documents relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu's right to make an effective representation and that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu to be set at liberty in this case." (Emphasis added)."

8. This Court in Jarinabegam Vs. State of Tamil Nadu by Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Exercise Department, Chennai and another (2007-1-MLJ-Crl-18) relying upon the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court cited supra has held that non supply of the copy of the bail applications in similar cases to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the order or detention.

9. As already analysed by us, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, non-supply of the documents, viz., bail applications, in similar cases, to the detenu has the effect of vitiating the impugned detention order. Further, due to non-supply of such a vital document, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.

10. In the light of the above said principles laid down by the Honourable Supreme Court and for the reasons stated above, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by first respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Lakshmipathy S/o.Veerapathirappa, made in S.C.No.18 of 2015 dated 09.04.2015, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CO) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gm To

1. The District Collector and District Executive Magistrtae, Collectorate, Krishnagiri District.

2. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.

1 CC to Mr.P.Anbarasan, Advocate SR.No. 43757 H.C.P.No.1180 of 2015 MSM (CO) PSI (14.09.2015)