Muthuramalingam, Aged 24 Years v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.12.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM H.C.P. No.2093 of 2018 Muthuramalingam ... Petitioner -Vs1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By the Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
...
Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in No.754/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 25.08.2018 on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenue Murugan, son of Krishnan, aged about 29 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents:
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner, who is the friend of the detenu, namely, Murugan, Son of Krishnan, aged 29 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 25.08.2018 in No.754/BCDFGISSSV/2018 detaining his brother as "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).
2.The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.671/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station for offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in No.754/BCDFGISSSV/2018 on 25.08.2018.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused 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. The Grounds of Detention would reveal that a ground case was registered against him in Cr.No.671/2018 for the offences u/s. 147, 148, 149, 341, 302 IPC. Admittedly, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case. 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 Memo No.754/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 25.08.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Murugan, Son of Krishnan, aged about 29 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
kkn Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar
To 1.The Secretary to the Government, Home Prohibition & Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2093 of 2018 kak(25/01/2019)