Venkata Lakshmi, 25 Years v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 30.10.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR H.C.P. No.1379 of 2017 Venkata Lakshmi ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by Rep. By the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District.
... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in S.C.No.41/2017, dated 12.07.2017 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Narayanasamy, S/o.Aswathappa, aged about 26 years the detenue, now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set the
petitioner's husband Narayanasamy, S/o.Aswathappa, aged about 26 years the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.Shanmuga Sundaram for M/s.A.Gokula Krishnan For Respondents :
Mr. V.M.R.Rajentran Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, namely, Narayanasamy, S/o.Aswathappa, aged about 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order in S.C.No.41 of 2017, dated 12.07.2017, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenu has not moved any bail application as on the date of passing of the detention order. When no bail application is filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu is likely to get bail in the ground case and there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said case. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned order of detention in total non-application of mind and the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials.
4. Despite opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. However, 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.
5. On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, we find that the Detaining Authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Admittedly, at the time of passing the order of detention, no bail
application was pending in the ground case. Though the detaining authority has made reliance on similar case in which accused was granted bail, the facts involved in that case are different, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the said order was passed mechanically without application of mind. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in S.C.No.41 of 2017 dated 12.07.2017, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Narayanasamy, S/o.Aswathappa, aged about 26 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Given the nature of the case, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax. [R.S.A.,J.] [N.S.K.,J.] 30.10.2017 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No mps Note to office:
Issue copy by today itself
To:
1.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District.
3.The Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
and N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
mps H.C.P. No.1379 of 2017 30.10.2017