R.Manickam v. The Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.09.2019

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH R.Manickam : Petitioner Vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai-9.

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli 627 009.

3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

4. The Inspector of Police, Surandai Police Station, Tirunelveli District : Respondents PRAYER: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in M.H.S.Confdl. No.23/2019 dated 20.03.2019 and to quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue, Kalaiarasan, S/o.Raja @ Periyaraja, aged about 21 years before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

For Petitioner : Mr.C.K.M.Appaji For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide proceedings in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 23/2019 dated 20.03.2019, whereby the detenu was ordered to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a "Goonda".

1/3

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detenu came into adverse notice in one adverse case and one ground case in Crime No.73/2019 under Section 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC on the file of the Surandai Police Station, who is the sponsoring authority.

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner focussed his argument on the ground, wherein, the detaining authority has taken into consideration the fact that the accused, who are similarly placed, have been granted bail by the Court below.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority, without the availability of materials, cannot ipso facto satisfy himself regarding the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, merely on the ground that the accused, who are similarly placed have been granted bail.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha v. State of Tamil Nadu ((2011) 5 SCC 244) to substantiate his submission.

6. We have carefuly considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record.

7. Even though several grounds have been raised in the petition filed before this Court, it will be enough, if this Court focuses on the main ground that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The detaining authority, failed to take a note as to whether the detenu has filed any bail application. However, it has been stated that in cases of similar nature, the accused persons have been granted bail by the Court below and therefore, there is imminent possibility of the detenu filing a similar bail petition in future and coming out on bail, after a lapse of time.

8. The issue that has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is no longer res integra and it is covered by the judgment that has been cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which has been referred supra.

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held in the above judgment that the accused persons, who are similarly placed being granted bail by the same Court or by a higher Court, cannot be a ground for the detaining authority to come to such a subjective satisfaction without there being any materials to substantiate the same. This by itself reflects non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the order of detention is liable to be interfered with.

2/3

10. 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 in M.H.S.Confdl. No.23/2019 dated 20.03.2019 is quashed. The detenu, namely Kalaiarasan, S/o.Raja @ Periyaraja, Male aged 21 years, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CO) // True Copy // Sub Assistant Registrar(CS ) To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort.St. George, Chennai-9.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.

3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

4. The Inspector of Police, Surandai Police Station, Tirunelveli District

5. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(LAw&ORder), Fort st. George, Chennai 9

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

Order made in Dated: 24.09.2019 rr MK (25.10.2019) 3P 7C 3/3