Amul v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P. No. 1074 of 2019 Amul ... Petitioner -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Veppery, Chennai.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent 08.05.2019 in BCDFGISSSV No.234 of 2019 against the petitioner's son Jayaseelan, male, aged about 26 years, son of Ashok, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Illiyas For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Jayaseelan, son of Ashok, aged 26 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.234 of 2019
dated 08.05.2019, holding to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition. 2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.The main argument of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the case relied on by the detaining authority is not similar in nature and the offences in the ground case are totally different. Therefore, the likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is not there and the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining authority is not proper. 4.For appreciating the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the relevant averments in para 4 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "4.I am aware that Thiru Jayaseelan is in T-3 Korattur Police Station Crime Nos.210/2019 and 215/2019. He has not moved any bail application for T3 Korattur P.S. Nos.210/2019 and 215/2019 so far.
The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Jayaseelan is taking action to take him out on bail by filing a bail application for T-3 Korattur P.S. Cr.Nos.210/2019 and 215/2019 before the appropriate court. Further, in a similar case, registered at F-1 Chintadripet P.S. Cr.No.809/2014 u/s. 147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014. In a similar case registered u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392, 397 & 506(ii) IPC in M-4 Red Hills Police Station Cr.No.369/2018, bail was granted by the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur in Crl.M.P.No.3177/2018. Hence I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in T-3 Korattur P.S. Cr.Nos.
210/2019 and 215/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate court since in similarly placed cases bails are granted by courts after a lapse of time..........."
5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a similar case registered in F-1 Chintadripet P.S. Cr.No.809/2014 u/s. 147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in such activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The similar case relied on by the
authority was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 IPC @ 302 IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 294(b), 336, 392, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in not considering the similar case for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside. 6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.234 of 2019 dated 08.05.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Jayaseelan, son of Ashok, aged 26 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 mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government(Home), Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal,Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.1074 of 2019 mg[co] srg 19/09/2019