T.Selvi, v. The Secretary To Government,
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.11.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN H.C.P.(MD)No.966 of 2016 T.Selvi .. Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
.. Respondents Prayer: Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the detention order passed in C.O.C.No.53 of 2016, dated 22.07.2016 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband viz., Ammapettaiyan @ Tamilarasan S/o.Subramaniyan, male aged 48 years, who is detained in Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.A.S.Prabhu For Respondents : Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Mr.Ammapettaiyan @ Tamilarasan, S/o.Subramaniyan, aged about 48 years. The detenu has been detained, as per the order of the second respondent, dated 22.07.2016, under Section 2(b) of the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as "Boot-legger". Challenging the same, the petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records carefully.
3.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in arriving at a subjective satisfaction to detain the detenu by observing that the bail application moved by the detenu in Crime No.228 of 2016 is pending before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam and further inferring that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the same Crime No.228 of 2016. Thus, the impugned order is liable to be vitiated, the learned counsel contended.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would, however, oppose this Habeas Corpus Petition. He would submit that when the bail application is pending in respect of the ground case in Crime No.228 of 2016 before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, due to inadvertence the detaining authority has stated that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case before the Higher Court. However, on that score, the impugned detention order need not be interfered with.
5. We have considered the above submissions.
6. In this case, the detaining authority has mentioned that the detenu had moved a bail application in the ground case in Crime No.228 of 2016 before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi in Cr.M.P.No.3482 of 2016 and the same was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Sirkazhi on 11.07.2016. It is also mentioned that the petitioner has moved further bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Nagapattinam, in Cr.M.P.No.1738 of 2016, on 13.07.2016 and the same is still pending. While so, the detaining authority has arrived at a subjective satisfaction that there is a real and imminent
possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing a bail application for the very same Crime No.228 of 2016 before the Higher Court. When the bail application moved by the detenu is pending before the concerned Sessions Court, it is not incumbent on the part of the detaining authority to arrive at the satisfaction that there is a real and imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application, which would clearly shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in clamping the order of detention against the detenu. In such view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be set aside.
7. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order passed by the second respondent in his proceedings in C.O.C.No.53/2016, dated 22.07.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Ammapettaiyan @ Tamilarasan, S/o.Subramaniyan, aged about 48 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(Admin) /True copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai -9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, O/o.the District Collector and District Magistrate, Nagapattinam District, Nagapattinam.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
+1 cc to M/s. K.A.S.Prabhu, Advocate, SR.NO.74109. Order made in H.C.P.(MD) No.966 of 2016 Dated: 29.11.2016 gcg CSL/SKN/04.01.2017 : 3P/6C