Elumalai v. The Sectretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 18.11.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice RMT. TEEKAA RAMAN H.C.P. No. 1897 of 2019 Elumalai ... Petitioner/Father of the detenue -vs1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent in No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 07.08.2019 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner's son namely, Balamurugan @ Annamalai, son of Elumalai, aged about 23 years, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.B.M.Santharam 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 father of the detenu, Balamurugan @ Annamalai, son of Elumalai, male, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 07.08.2019, 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 offence 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 3 of the grounds of detention are extracted below: "3. I am aware that Thiru Balamurugan @ Annamalai is in remand in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.672/2019 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. He has not moved any bail application for H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.672/2019.
The sponsoring authority has stated that the relative of Thiru. Balamurugan @ Annamalai are taking action to take him out on bail in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.672/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate Court. In a similar case registered u/s 341,294(b),323,336,427,307 & 506(ii) IPC in F2 Egmore Police Station Cr.No.145/2018 bail was granted by Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6184/2018. Hence, I infer that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in H6 R.K.Nagar Police Station Cr.No.672/2019 by filing bail application before the appropriate court, since in similar case bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will
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 similar case registered u/s 341,294(b),323,336,427,307 & 506(ii) IPC in F2 Egmore Police Station Cr.No.145/2018 bail was granted by Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6184/2018 and, therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case in Crime No.672/2019 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 341,294(b),323,336,427,307 & 506 (ii) IPC whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 147,148,341,294(b),324, 307 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 No.474/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 07.08.2019, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Balamurugan @ Annamalai, son of Elumalai, male, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi/ssm To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police (Goondas Section), Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison,Puzhal,Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order),Fort St.George,Chennai-9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No.1897 of 2019 rv(co) nr 17/12/2019