A.Ram Kumar v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.07.2015
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN H.C.P.No.21/2015 A.Ramkumar .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Chennai 600 008.
3.The Superintendent Central Prison-2, Puzhal Chennai 600 066.
.. Respondents Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records from the 2nd respondent in connection with order in BDFGISSV No.2149/2014 dated 12.12.2014 and quash the same and produce the petitioner's brother namely Ravikumar, son of Anandan, aged 22 years, now confined in Central Prison-2, Chennai under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Pugalenthi For Respondents :
Mr.M.Maharaja, APP
ORDER
[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 BDFGISSV No.2149/2014 dated 12.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the brother of the petitioner herein, by name, Ravikumar, son of Anandan, aged 22 years was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the 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.P.Pugalenthi, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of non-supply of copy of the bail applications in the similar cases, 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.
3.Per contra, Mr.M.Maharaja, the 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 applications in the similar cases, referred to in the grounds of detention were not supplied to the detenu.
4.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.
5.It is seen from paragraph No.4 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar cases, viz., [a] the accused was released on bail by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Tambaram, in Crl.MP.No.17907/2013 in respect of the case in Cr.No.1340/2013 for the offence u/s.341, 336, 427, 392 & 506[ii] IPC on the file of S11 Tambaram Police Station ; and [b] the accused was released on bail by the learned XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai, in Crl.MP.No.593/2009 in respect of the case in Crime No.26/2009 for the offence u/s.379 IPC on the file of the R1 Mambalam Police Station respectively. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain any of the documents, viz.
, the bail applications, in respect of the similar cases ; but the respective bail orders of the said similar cases [both in English version and in vernacular version] have been furnished in page Nos.273 to 277 of the Booklet. The said bail applications filed in similar cases were the documents relied upon by the Detaining Authority to come to a subjective satisfaction that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. Admittedly, such documents have not been supplied to the detenu, as it did not form part of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail applications and other documents in similar cases to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.
6.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)."
7. 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.
8. 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 documents, the detenu has lost valuable right to make an effective representation to the authorities concerned.
9.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.
10. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The impugned detention order 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 (CS III ) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar AP
To 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Chennai 600 008.
3.The Superintendent Central Prison-2, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (law and order) Fort Saint George, Chennai-9
5. THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.
HCP.No.21/2015 KM (CO) kk 13/7