← Library
Madras High CourtHCP/270/2015allowed

Ramani v. The Secretary To The

2015-07-08Honourable Dr Justice S. Tamilvanan,Honourable Mr Justice C. T. Selvam4 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 08.07.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM H.C.P.No.270/2015 Ramani .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Vellore District, Vellore.

.. Respondents Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 06.12.2014 in C3/D.No.101/2014 against the petitioner brother Guna @ Gunaseelan, Male, aged 26 years, son of Manickam, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D.Balaji 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 C3/D.No.101/2014 dated 06.12.2014, whereby the detenu/the brother of the petitioner herein, by name, Guna @ Gunaseelan, Male, aged 26 years, son of Manickam, 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.D.Balaji, the 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.

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 application in the similar case, 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.5 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused Ranjith Kumar and Sathyaraj were released on bail by this Court in Crl.OP.No.14689/2014 on 13.06.2014 in respect of the case in Cr.No.987/2014 for the offence u/s.341, 294[b], 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 & 506[ii] IPC on the file of M8 Sathangadu Police Station. On a perusal of the Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution, it is seen that it does not contain the document, viz.

, the bail application, in respect of the similar case ; but only the bail order [both in english and vernacular version] of the said similar case has been furnished in page Nos.118 to 121 of the Booklet. The said bail application filed in similar 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 Paper Book furnished by the Prosecution. Therefore, non supply of the copy of the bail application and other documents in similar case to the detenu would vitiate the impugned detention order.

6.It is also seen that from the Grounds of Detention, in particular, from paragraph 1, the detenu was arrested by way of P.T.Warrant [formal arrest] in the adverse case Nos.4 to 7 in Cr.Nos.287/2014 ; 288/2014 ; 289/2014 and 290/2014 registered by Vellore North Police Station. But the factum of remand of the detenu in the said adverse cases, viz., in Cr.Nos.287/2014 ; 288/2014 ; 289/2014 and 290/2014 , has not been reflected in paragraph 5 of the Grounds of Detention and 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 the remand of the detenu in the said adverse cases, it is not known whether the detenu has filed any bail application in the said adverse cases or not. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenue coming out on bail in the said adverse case. On this ground also, the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be dismissed. 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 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)."

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 application/bail order copy in similar case 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 document, viz., bail order etc., in similar case, 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.

11. 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 //True copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

2.The District Collector & District Magistrate Vellore District, Vellore.

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Vellore.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government,public (L & O) Fort Saint George, Chennai 5.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.

HCP.No.270/2015 SR(CO) yJ (22.07.15)