Prema v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04.06.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.3005 of 2018 Prema .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai-600 007.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother by name detenu Rajini @ Anbu selvan aged 40 years before this Court now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai set him at liberty and to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in No.1096/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 30.11.2018 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same.
For Petitioner ..
Mr.T.Muruganantham 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 sister of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 30.11.2018 made in No.1096/BCDFGISSSV/2018, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained
under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor 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 adverse 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 Rajini @ Anbu Selvan is in remand in S9 Palavanthangal Police Station Cr.No.455/2018 and Central Crime Branch Cr.No.343/2018 and lodged at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. He has mvoed a bail application for S9 Palavanthangal Police Station Cr.No.
455/2018 before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.6323/2018 and bail was granted on 16.11.2018. He has not yet furnished sufficient sureties in this case and he remain in prison. He has moved a bail application for Central Crime Branch Cr.No.343/2018 before the Metropolitan Magistrate Court for the exclusive trial of CCB Cases (relating to cheating cases in Chennai) CBCID Metro Cases, Egmore, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.6778/2018 and the same is pending. In the adverse case registered U/s 294(b), 323, 420, 506(i) IPC & 3, 4 of TNPCEI Act 2003 in S9 Palavanthangal Police Station Cr.No.455/2018 he was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur in Crl.M.P.No.6323/2018. Hence I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in Central Crime Branch Cr.No.
343/2018 since in similar case bail is granted by the court after a lapse of time and he may come out on bail in S9 Palavanthangal Police Station Cr.No.455/2018 by offering sufficient sureties. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to be maintenance of public order......."
5.From a perusal of the detention order, it is seen that the detaining authority has taken into consideration a similar case registered in S9 Palavanthangal Police Station Crime No.455 of 2018 for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 420, 506(i) IPC & 3, 4 of TNPCEI Act 2003 and bail was granted to the detenu in Crl.M.P.No.6323/2018 on 16.11.2018 by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur 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 294(b), 323, 420, 506(i) IPC & 3, 4 of TNPCEI Act 2003 whereas the offences involved in the ground case are under Sections 406, 420, 120(B) r/w 34 IPC altered into 406, 420, 120 (B), 506(i) r/w 34 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.1096/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 30.11.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Rajini @ Anbu Selvan, S/o.Panneerselvam, aged about 40 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary, Public(Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.3005 of 2018 KK(CO) CSL/15.07.2019