Ramya v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Ramya W/o.Madhavan .. Petitioner / Detenue Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home and Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Central Prisons, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Team-20, EDF-III, Central Crime Branch-I, Vepery, Chennai.
... Respondents Page Nos.1/10
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in Detention order vide D.O.No.29/BCDFGISSSV/2023, dated 03.02.2023 against the petitioner, named Ramya, aged about 35 years, wife of Madhavan, confined at Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same, consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner named Ramya, aged about 35 years, wife of Madhavan before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Vivekananthan For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] This order will now dispose of the captioned matter.
2. When the captioned matter was listed in the admission board on 01.03.2023, the following order was made by this Court. Page Nos.2/10
Page Nos.3/10
3. The aforementioned order / proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. This means that the short forms and short references for convenience used in the earlier order dated 01.03.2023 will continue to be used in the instant order also. Page Nos.4/10
4. Mr.R.Vivekananthan, learned counsel for petitioner, in the admission board projected the argument that the occurrence qua ground case is in the year 2018 but impugned preventive detention order has been made only in 2023 but in the final hearing Board, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on the point that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is flawed / impaired. Elaborating on this argument, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order and that portion reads as follows:
'... In a similar case, registered in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.09/2022 u/s 406, 420 IPC, bail was granted by the Special Metropolitan Magistrate for the exclusive trial of CCB cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) and CB CID Metro cases, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.6800/2022. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of her coming out on bail by filing another bail application in Central Crime Branch-I, Cr.No.261/2022 by filing another bail application and bail application for Central Crime Branch-I Cr.No.04/2023 case before the appropriate court, since, in a similar case, bail was granted by the courts after a lapse of time. ...'
Page Nos.5/10
5. Adverting to the aforesaid portion of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order, learned counsel drew our attention to the grounds booklet served on the detenue and more particularly to pages 1683 to 1685 thereat. In pages 1683 to 1685 of the grounds booklet bail order in Crl.M.P.No.6800 of 2022 (Crime No.09/2022 on the file of Central Crime Branch) has been furnished to the detenue.
6. We had the benefit of perusing the grounds booklet and more particularly, the aforementioned bail order which shall hereinafter be referred to as Naveen's case as Naveen is the petitioner in Crl.M.P.No.6800 of 2022 on the file of the CCB & CBCID Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore, Chennai. Taking us through Naveen's case bail order learned counsel submitted that it is a default bail under Section 167(2) of Cr.P.C. and therefore comparing the same with the ground case to arrive at subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail is a flawed exercise.
Page Nos.6/10
7. Responding to the aforementioned argument, Mr.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary that alleged offences in the ground case and the alleged offences in Naveen's case bail order are broadly comparable.
8. We carefully considered the rival submissions. We find that in a default bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. it is more of a arithmetic mechanism that works and there is no discretion for the bail Court concerned. Absent discretion for a bail Court, comparing a default case bail order with another case to arrive at subjective satisfaction that there is imminent possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail is clearly a flawed exercise. In this regard, we remind ourselves that imminent possibility is not qua time but qua probability. Therefore, the discretion of the bail Court assumes immense significance. In this view of the matter, we have no difficulty in accepting/sustaining the argument of the learned counsel for petitioner that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority qua imminent possibility of detenue being enlarged on bail is impaired. The Page Nos.7/10
consequence is impugned preventive detention order gets vitiated and deserves to be dislodged.
9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 03.02.2023 bearing reference 29/BCDFGISSSV/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Tmt.Ramya, aged 35 years, wife of Thiru.Madhavan, now detained in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S., J.) (R.S.V., J.) 24.07.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking order rsi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Puzhal, Chennai.
Page Nos.8/10
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home and Prohibition, Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai.
3.The Superintendent, Special Prison for Women, Central Prisons, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police, Team-20, EDF-III, Central Crime Branch-I, Vepery, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
rsi 24.07.2023 Page Nos.10/10