Rajeshwari v. The Principal Secretary To
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.HARIPARANTHAMAN H.C.P.No.3217/2015 Rajeshwari .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
4.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in BCDFIGSSSV No.637/2015 dated 29.07.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu, by name, Murugan, son of Munirathinam, aged about 36 years, now detained in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner :
Ms.N.Subha For respondents :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, 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 BCDFGISSSV No.637/2015 dated 29.07.2015, whereby the petitioner's husband/detenu herein, viz., Murugan, son of Munirathinam, aged about 36 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, 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, Ms.N.Subha, 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.
3.According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.1851/2015 and in the 5th and 6th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.1048 and 1617/2015 respectively registered by R-8 Vadapalani Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.8915/2015 was dismissed on 22.06.2015 and the 2nd bail application filed by him in the ground case before this Court in Crl.OP.No.15525/2015 was also dismissed on 09.07.2015 and the bail applications filed by him in the 5th and 6th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.1048 and 1617/2015 respectively before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.715 and 716/2015 respectively were dismissed on 27.07.
2015 and he has not moved any further bail application in the said cases as on the date of passing of the detention order. Further, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that there is very likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases by relying upon a similar case registered by K-3 Aminjikarai Police Station Cr.No.164/2013 u/s.384 and 506(ii) IPC wherein bail was granted by the V Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.460/2013. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the detenu has not moved any further bail application in the 5th and 6th adverse cases subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier applications. When no bail applications are filed, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail.
out on bail in the said cases, by relying upon a similar case, is a mere ipse dixit without any cogent materials. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in [a] 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] ; [b]2005 [1] CTC 577 [VELMURUGAN @ VELU Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE] and [c] 2012 [7] SCC 181 [HUIDROM KONUNGJAO SINGH VS. STATE OF MANIPUR]. 4.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. 5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts and citation.
6.As could be seen from paragraph 4 of the grounds in the order of detention, the detenu has been in remand in the ground case in Cr.No.1851/2015 and in the 5th and 6th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.1048 and 1617/2015 respectively registered by R-8 Vadapalani Police Station and the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.8915/2015 was dismissed on 22.06.2015 and the 2nd bail application filed by him in the ground case before this Court in Crl.OP.No.15525/2015 was also dismissed on 09.07.2015 and the bail applications filed by him in the 5th and 6th adverse cases in Cr.Nos.1048 and 1617/2015 respectively before the XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.715 and 716/2015 respectively were dismissed on 27.07.
2015 and he has not moved any further bail application in the said cases as on the date of passing of the detention order. When no bail applications are filed, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in the said cases, by relying upon a similar case, would be a mere ipse dixit and that would vitiate the order of detention and the same is indicative of total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore on this ground also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. Hence, the order of detention cannot be sustained in the eye of law and the same is liable to be set aside.
7.In this connection it is useful to refer the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
[a]In 2006 [1] MLJ [Crl.] 539, [T.V.SARAVANAN @ S.A.R.PRASANNA VENKATACHARIAR CHATURVEDI V. STATE OF TAMILNADU THROUGH SECRETARY AND ANOTHER] , wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows:
"The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The "imminent possibility" of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record, in the absence of such material on record, the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention."
[b]In 2005 (1) CTC 577 (Velmurugan @ Velu vs. The Commissioner of Police), it has been held as follows: "3.......unless there is a clear expression by the detaining authority in the grounds of detention with reference to the imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail by filing bail application, the detaining authority would not choose to pass the detention order. In order to prevent the detenu from committing the acts, which would be disturbance to public order and public health, the detaining authority shall consider the materials and on the basis of subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail or likelihood of the detenu being released on bail, the detaining authority may pass such an order under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. When such an essential requirement, namely, the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, is absent, it has to be held that the order of detention is vitiated."
[c]In 2012 [7] SCC 181 [cited supra] which reads thus:-
12. In Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu through Secretary to Govt. & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 244, this Court while dealing with the issue held : "........ A mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention cannot sustain the detention order and has to be ignored......
In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a coaccused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground."
14......... Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co- accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law."
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.
-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar vga To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (IX) Department, Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Director General of Police, Office of the Director General of Office, Mylapore, Chennai-600 004.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and Order Department, Fort St.George, chennai-9 5.The Superintendent of Prisons, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras +2 ccs to M/s.N.Subha, Advocate sr.6859 H.C.P.No.3217/2015 aa18/02/2016