D.Lakshmi Devi, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 26.10.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.1382/2018 D.Lakshmi Devi ... Petitioner -vs1.State of Tamil Nadu rep.by its Secretary to Government [Home], Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

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

... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in C3/D.O/42/2018 dated 22.06.2018 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Saminathan @ Sakthi, son of Devanathan, aged about 26 years the petitioner's son now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty forth with.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Saravanakumar For Respondents:

Mr.M.Mohamed Riyaz, APP

ORDER

[Order of the Court by C.T.SELVAM, J.] Petitioner, mother of the detenu herein, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 22.06.2018 in C3/D.O/42/2018 detaining her son as a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2 (f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot

leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

As per the grounds of detention dated 22.06.2018 passed by the second respondent, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

i)Adverse case:

Sl No.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law Neyveli Township PS Cr.No.208/2015 341, 294[b], 324, 506[ii] IPC Neyveli Township PS Cr.No.216/2015 294[b], 324, 326 & 506 [ii] IPC Neyveli Township PS Cr.No.69/2017 120[B], 148, 294[b], 302 IPC (ii) Ground Case:

Sl No.

Name of the Police station and Crime No.

Section of law Panruti PS Cr.No.296/2018 392, 397, 506[ii] IPC We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority including the counter affidavit filed by the respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Detaining Authority has not satisfied himself as to the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case as the detenu has never moved any bail application in the said case subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail applications. Hence, on the above sole ground, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

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. On a perusal of the impugned order of detention, in particular, the Grounds, we find that the Detaining Authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case. Admittedly, at the time of passing the Detention Order, no bail application was filed in

the ground case in Cr.No.296/2018 subsequent to the dismissal of the earlier bail applications, twice, viz., in Crl.MP.No.2371/2018 on 13.06.2018 by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Cuddalore and in Crl.MP.No.2572/2018 on 21.06.2018 by the very same learned Judge. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind. When no bail application is filed, the logical conclusion would be that there is no likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Therefore, we are of the view that the finding of the Detaining Authority that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, is nothing but a clear non-application of mind and the Detaining Authority has not passed the order on merits ; but passed, based on mere ipsi dixit. Therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu, [Home], Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

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

3.The Superintendent of Prisons Central Prison, Cuddalore.

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to Mr.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr.74183 H.C.P.No.1382/2018 srg 16/11/2018