Senthamarai, Aged 45 Years, v. Additional Chief Secretary To

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.11.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P. No.1529 of 2018 Senthamarai ... Petitioner -Vs1.Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

3.Inspector of Police (Law and Order) cum Sponsoring Authority, D1 Triplicane Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal - I, Chennai - 66.

...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 Memo No.422/BCDFGISSSV/2018, dated 21.06.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue confined in Central Prison, Puzhal I, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenue at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Xavier Felix For Respondents:

Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, viz., Madhan @ Madhan Kumar, Son of Moorthi, aged 23 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 21.06.2018 in No.422/BCDFGISSSV/2018 detaining her son as "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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 14/1982).

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:- S.No.

Police Station & Crime No.

Section of Law 1.

H5 New Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.192/2016 364 A IPC 2.

D1 Triplicane Police Station Crime No.227/2018 147, 148, 353, 294(b), 332, 336, 307 & 506 (ii) IPC 3.

D1 Triplicane Police Station Crime No.228/2018 147, 148, 294(b), 353, 506(ii) IPC & 3 of TNPPDL Act 4.

D1 Triplicane Police Station Crime No.230/2018 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 324, 353, 332, 336, 307 & 506(ii) IPC 5.

D2 Anna Salai Police Station Crime No.161/2018 341, 397 & 506(ii) IPC The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Cr.No.334/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, Law and Order, D1 Triplicane Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294 (b), 323, 332, 336, 353, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in in No.422/BCDFGISSSV/2018 on 21.06.2018.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have perused the counter affidavit as also the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

5. A perusal of the Grounds of Detention would reveal that 5 adverse cases have been registered against the detenu and a ground case came to be registered against him in Cr.No.334/2018 for the offences u/s. 341, 294(b), 323, 332, 336, 353, 427, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Admittedly, the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case before the learned Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.8886/2018 and the same was dismissed on 13.06.2018. Therefore, the probability of release of the detenu imminently does not arise. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the detention order. Though the detaining authority has made reliance on similar case, in which an accused was granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied mechanically.

Normally, bails are granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case plea, cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.422/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 21.06.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Madhan @ Madhan Kumar, Son of Moorthi, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kkn To:

1.Addl. Chief Secretary to the Govt., Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 7.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal-I, Chennai.

4.The Joint Secretary, Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

6.The Inspector of Police, (Law & Order) cum Sponsoring Authority, D1 Triplicane Police Station, Triplicane, Chennai.

H.C.P.No.1529 of 2018 ssd[co] srg 12/12/2018