Sudhakar, S/O.Nagarajan v. The Principal Secretary To

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 04.09.2019

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Sudhakar .. Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu rep., by, The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records connected with the Detention Order of the second respondent in Detention Order No.10/2019, dated 23.02.2019 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu by name Sudhakar, son of Nagarajan, aged about 30 years, now detained at Madurai Central Prison, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in Detention Order in No.10/2019, dated 23.02.2019, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding the 1/4

detenu as a "GOONDA".

2. The Sponsoring Authority had taken note of the fact that there were two adverse cases pending against the detenu and he was arrested in the ground case in Crime No.4 of 2019 and therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the detenu is a habitual offender, recommendation was made to the second respondent to detain the petitioner under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The second respondent, on being satisfied with the grounds for detention, passed the Detention Order, dated 23.02.2019, against the detenu and branded him as a "GOONDA".

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration the fact that the bail petition filed by the detenu was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate Court in the ground case and had come to the conclusion that the detenu will file a bail petition before the higher court and he will be granted bail and therefore, there is an imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel submitted that the reasoning given by the Detaining Authority is not supported by any materials and the similar case that has been taken note of by the Detaining Authority pertains to the case of the year 2010, wherein, bail was granted by this Court by taking into consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of that case.

Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the similar case that has been referred by the Detaining Authority is not a material to come to a conclusion that the petitioner will come out on bail, more particularly, due to the fact that as on the date of passing the Detention Order, there was no bail petition pending before any Court.

4. In order to substantiate his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha vs. State of Tamil nadu, reported in 2011(5) SCC 244.

5. We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

6. It is seen from the records that at Paragraph No.5 of the detention order, the Detaining Authority has taken note of the fact that the petitioner has been released on bail in one adverse case. However, while dealing with the ground case, the Detaining Authority had taken into consideration the bail petition that was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Dindigul. This petition was dismissed on the ground that the learned Judicial Magistrate did not have the jurisdiction to deal with the bail petition, since the offence involved is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions. The Detaining Authority has also taken into consideration the fact that the accused who was involved in a similar case has been granted bail by higher court. The similar case that has been referred by the 2/4

Detaining Authority is a case of the year 2010, where this Court had granted bail after considering the facts and circumstances of that case. Admittedly, the co-accused have not been granted bail in this case. The subjective satisfaction that has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority is not supported by any material and the subjective satisfaction has been arrived on a mere assumption. The facts of this case is squarely covered by Rekha's case referred supra. This clearly itself reflects the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and therefore, the order of detention is liable to be interfered with.

7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order No.10/2019, dated 23.02.2019, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Sudhakar, son of Nagarajan, aged 30 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other cases. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (AD-I) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS) PJL To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Office of the District Magistrate and District Collector, Dindigul District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.

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

3/4

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

ORDER MADE IN 04.09.2019 JMN(30.09.2019) 4P : 6C 4/4