P.Rasul Beevi v. The Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 27.04.2015

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.RAJENDRAN H.C.P.No.511/2015 P.Rasul Beevi .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office, Chennai-8.

.. 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 connected with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent herein in Memo No.1908/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 20.11.2014 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Ahamed Thamimum Ansari, son of Ibrahim Ali, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.M.Ranjith Kumar For Respondents :

Mr.M.Maharaja, APP

ORDER

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.1908/BDFGISSV/2014 dated 20.11.2014, whereby the detenu/the husband of the petitioner herein, by name, Ahamed Thamimum Ansari, son of Ibrahim Ali,aged 34 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 "Video Pirate". 2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.M.Ranjith Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground of nonsupply of copy of the bail application in 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 similar case, referred to in the grounds of detention was 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.3 of the Grounds of Detention that in similar case, the accused was released on bail by the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai in respect of the case in Cr.No.75/2012 for the offence u/s.51 r/w 63 Copyright Act, 1957 and 292[2][a] IPC on the file of Central Crime Branch. 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 application in similar case.

The said bail application filed in similar case 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 application in similar case 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.

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 application in similar case 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 application 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.

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 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP

To 1.The Secretary to Government Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office, Chennai-8.

3.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order) Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

5.THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT, CHENNAI.

1 cc to Mr.M.Ranjith Kumar ,Advocate, SR.No.23282 HCP.No.511/2015 CA(CO) PMK.5.2.2015