Indira v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 01.02.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN H.C.P.No.2156/2015 Indira .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
.. Respondents Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.664/2015 dated 31.07.2015 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce petitioner's son Anbu, S/o.Raji, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.Senthil Kumaran For Respondents :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Memo No.664/2015 dated 31.07.2015, whereby the detenu/ son of the petitioner herein, by name, Anbu, S/o.Raji, 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.A.Senthil Kumaran, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply of copy of the bail applications in 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, 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 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, the accused were released on bail viz. [a] by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.Nos.1259 and 1364/2012 for the offence under sections 457 and 380 IPC in Cr.No.1062/2011 on the file of P-3 Vyasarpadi Police Station; [b] by the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.202/2015 for the offence u/s.379 IPC in Cr.No.1987/2014 on the file of R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station; [c] by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.460/2013 for the offences u/s.
384 and 506 [ii] IPC in Crime No.164/2013 on the file of K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station and [d] by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.2805/2015 for the offences u/s.341, 392, 397, 294 (b), 336, 427 and 506[ii] IPC in Crime No.384/2015 on the file of R-4 Soundarapandiyanar Angadi Police Station respectively. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the copy of the said bail applications in similar cases.
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 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 application 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 copy of the 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.
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/- Assistant Registrar(CS IV) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3. The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
HCP.No.2156/2015 rsy[co] srg 17/02/2016