Sowgath Ali (M/52) v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 17.07.2017
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.2306 of 2016 Sowgath Ali .. Petitioner /Father of the detenue Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police [Goondas Section], Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the entire records in connection with the detention order of the 2nd respondent in No.1095/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 04.10.2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son namely Achu @ Asraf Ali, aged 25 years, S/o.Sowgath Ali was detained as 'Goonda' and lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Palanikumar For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in No.1095/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 04.10.2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Achu @ Asraf Ali, aged 25 years, S/o.Sowgath Ali and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases : i. S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No.3713/2015 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code. ii.H-1 Otteri Police Station Crime No.113/2016 registered under Section 379 of Indian Penal Code.
iii.S-6 Sankar Nagar Police Station Crime No.1956/2016 registered under Sections 341, 294[b], 392, 307 and 506[ii] of Indian Penal Code.
3. Further, it is averred in the affidavit that one Selvam, S/o.Natesan, who is running a TASMAC shop at No.121, Pammal Main Road, Pammal, Chennai-75 as a de facto complainant has given a complaint against the detenu and others, wherein, it is alleged that on 16.08.2016, near Suriamman Koil, the detenu and others have intercepted the de facto complainant and abducted a sum of Rs.1,500/- and also created panic in the minds of the de facto complainant and general public by showing deadly weapons and consequently, a case has been registered in Crime No.1958/2016 under Sections 341, 294[b], 336, 427, 397 and 506 [ii] of Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been filed, wherein, it is averred to the effect that most of the averments made in the affidavit are false. The Sponsoring Authority has supplied all the relevant materials to the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority after considering all the relevant materials, has arrived at a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a professional offender and
ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and the same does not require any interference and ultimately, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been submitted to the concerned authorities. But, the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra, learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the representation given on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the contention put forth on the side of the petitioner is liable to the rejected.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein, it has been clearly stated that in between column Nos.7 and 9, 3 clear working days are available. Likewise, in between column Nos.12 and 13, 35 clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents and the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.
9. In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 04.10.2016 passed in No.1095/BCDFGISSSV/2016 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Achu @ Asraf Ali, aged 25 years, S/o.Sowgath Ali is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, O/o.The Commissioner of Police [Goondas Section], Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2306 of 2016 SJ(CO) GN(17/07/2017)