Ambika v. The Secretary To The Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.10.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P. No.1434 of 2019 Ambika ... Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.
... 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 dated 06.07.2019 in C3/D.O.No.64/2019 against the petitioner's husband Balamurugan @ Bala, male, aged 35 years, S/o. Shanmugam, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Balaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, Balamurugan @ BalaS/o. Shanmugam, male, aged 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O.No.64/2019 dated 06.07.2019, holding to be a "Sand Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(gg) 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 Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. We have perused the materials available on record. 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 5 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "5.I am aware that Thiru. Balamurugan @ Bala was produced before the Judicial Magistrate , Katpadi on 10.06.
2019 in the ground case in Thiruvalam Police Station Crime No.227/2019 u/s 353, 379, 430, 506(i), 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at Central Prison, Vellore as remand prisoner till 24.06.2019. Further remand was extended upto 08.07.2019.
I am aware that Thiru. Balamurugan @ Bala has filed a bail application before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in ground case in Thiruvalam Police Station Crime No.227/2019 u/s 353, 379, 430, 506(i), 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 in Crl MP No. 2954/2019 and the same was dismissed on 0607.2019. As far as the ground case concerned, in a similar case registered at Sipcot Police Station Crime No.222/2017 u/s 379, 430, 341, 353, 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 bail was granted to the accused Thiru. Vasu by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2854/201 on 27.07.2017. As bails are being granted by courts in such cases, there is most likely that he (Thiru. Balamurugan @ Bala) coming out of bail, by filing another bail application before the same court or higher court. If he enlarge himself on bail, he would indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order........."
5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration in a
similar case registered at Sipcot Police Station Crime No.222/2017 u/s 379, 430, 341, 353, 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 bail was granted to the accused Thiru. Vasu by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.2854/201 on 27.07.2017 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 u/s 379, 430, 341, 353, 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 whereas the offences involved in the ground case are 353, 379, 430, 506(i), 307 IPC r/w Section 21(1) Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957. 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 C3/D.O.No.64/2019 dated 06.07.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Balamurugan @ Bala, S/o. Shanmugam, male, aged 35 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless her detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,Secretariat,Chennai-9. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore.
3.The Superintendent,Central Prison, Vellore.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. AKM/07.11.19/3P-6C / H.C.P. No. 1434 of 2019