P.Ramba v. The District Collector Cum

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.6.2016

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.441 of 2016 P.Ramba ..

Petitioner vs.

1. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Office of the Collectorate, Vellore District.

2.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's son Mr.Prabhakaran son of Raghavan has been detained under Act 14 / 1982 as a "Boot legger" vide detention order C3/D.O No.09/2016 made by the 1st respondent by his order, dated 16/02/0216 and quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Vellore.

For Petitioner : M/s.Dass and Viswa Mr.S.Viswanathan for M/s. Dass and Viswa For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU.J,) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the first respondent vide Proceedings in C3/D.O.No.09/2016 dated 16.02.2016, whereby the detenu by name, Prabhakaran son of

Ragavan, aged 25 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "Bootlegger".

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. 4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu has been remanded in the ground case in Cr.No.63/2016 registered by Gudiyatham Prohibition Enforcement wing and the bail application filed by him in 4th adverse case in Cr.No.34 of 2016 registered by Pernambut Police Station before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.576/16 and the bail applications filed by him in ground case in Cr.No.63/2016 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.532 of 2016, are pending.

But the Detaining Authority, in the Grounds of Detention, has relied upon a similar case in Cr.No.483/15 registered by Gudiyatham Prohibition Enforcement wing, wherein the accused was granted bail by the Principal Sessions Court, Vellore in Crl.MP.No.4243/2015. Further, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in all the above stated cases and that if the detenu comes out on bail, he will indulge in such further activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The learned counsel would add that admittedly, in this case, the bail applications filed by the detenu in all the cases are pending. When bail applications are pending, then there is no presumption that the detenu would be granted bail.

If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail on the basis of the bail granted in the similar case. No cogent materials are available before the Detaining Authority to conclude / to apprehend that the detenu would likely to get bail in the ground case.

5. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. As could be evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, the detenu has been remanded in the ground case in Cr.No.63/2016 registered by Gudiyatham Prohibition Enforcement wing and the bail application filed by him in 4th adverse case in Cr.No.34 of 2016 registered by Pernambut Police Station before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.576/16 and the bail applications filed by him in ground case in Cr.No.63/2016 before the Principal Sessions Judge, Vellore in Crl.M.P.No.532 of 2016, are pending as on the date of the passing of the detention order. If that be so, there is no imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the said cases. Hence, the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention order in total nonapplication of mind which would vitiate the detention order.

7. In the light of the above facts, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar kua To

1. The District Collector cum District Magistrate, Office of the Collectorate, Vellore District. 2.The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St. George, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

+1cc to M/s. Dass & Viswa, Advocate, S.R.No.32940 GJ(CO) EU(5/07/2016) H.C.P.No.441 of 2016