E.Rani v. The Secretary To Govt.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 01.09.2015

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.1814/2015 E.Rani

...Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

...Respondents

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records maintained in Memo BDFGISSSV No.335/2015 dated 21.04.2015 on the file of the second respondent and to set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Muthu @ Karuppu Muthu, son of Ekambaram, aged 24 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66 before this Court and set him at liberty. For petitioner :

Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar 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 BDFGISSSV No.335/2015 dated 21.04.2015, whereby the petitioner is the mother of the detenu, by name, Muthu @ Karuppu Muthu, Son of Egambaram, aged 24 years, 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, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA".

2.As per the grounds of detention dated 21.04.2015, passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

i)Adverse Cases:

Sl Nos.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law M.1, Madhavaram PS Cr.No.1904/2014 379 IPC P.2 Otteri PS Cr.No.1262/2014 379 IPC K.2 Ayyanavaram PS Cr.No.1370/2014 379 IPC K.2 Ayyanavaram PS Cr.No.1386/2014 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC K.2 Ayyanavaram PS Cr.No.375/2015 379 IPC K.2 Ayyanavaram PS Cr.No.673/2015 379 IPC (ii) Ground Case:

Sl No.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law K.2 Ayanavaram Police Station PS Cr.No.734/2015 341,294(b), 323, 336, 392, 397 and 506(ii) IPC

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, 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.

4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been formally arrested and remanded to judicial custody in the second adverse case in Cr.No1262/2014 registered by the P.2 Otteri Police Station, but the said factum of the remand of the

detenu in the second adverse case in Cr.No.1262/2014 has not been reflected in the grounds of detention, more particularly in paragraph 4 of the Detention order. 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.

5.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.

6.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.

7.As could be evidenced from the Booklet furnished before us, the detenu was arrested in the second adverse case in Cr.No.1262/2014 registered by the P.2 Otteri Police Station. But the factum of remand of the detenu in the second adverse case in Crime No.1262/2014 has not been reflected in paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Detention and only a reference has been made in respect of the ground case. When nothing has been stated about the remand of the detenu in the said second adverse case, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse case or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said third adverse case. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total non-application of mind which would vitiate the detention order.

8.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. 9.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned grounds.

10.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/- Assistant Registrar(CS-IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kal To

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4. The Superintendent of Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai-66.

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

1 CC to Mr.R.Ganesh Kumar, Advocate SR.No. 47054 H.C.P.No.1814/2015 VSN (CO) PSI (22.09.2015)