Judgment:
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 29.10.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM Habeas Corpus Petition (Md.No.949 of 2013 Samsudeen ..Petitioner versus 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District..Respondents Petition 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 No.37/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.05.2013 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu by name Tajudeen @ PEI Tajudeen son of Samsudeen, aged about 24 years detained in Madurai Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.
!For Petitioner .Mr.T.Joseph Jeyakumar ^For Respondents.Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, Additional Public Prosecutor.
:ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN,J.) The father of the detenu has come before this Court.
The detenu has been branded as a ".Goonda".
as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2nd respondent passed in No.37/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.05.2013.
2.The detenu came to adveRs.notice in the following cases: S.No.Police Station and Sections of Law Crime Number 1 Dindigul District, 387and 506(ii) IPC Dindigul Town South PS.
Cr.
No.579 of 2012 2 B5 South Gate P.S.436 IPC Cr.No.679/2012 3 B5 South Grate PS387and 506(ii) IPC Cr.No.690/2012 3.The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered by the Inspector of Police, B5, South Gate P.S in Crime No.226 of 2013 under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506 (ii) IPC.
Aggrieved by the order of detention passed against his son, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is the father of the detenu.
4.Besides several grounds raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner to assail the impugned order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the question of subjective satisfaction as to the similar case consideration by the Detaining Authority.
The Detaining Authority by pointing out that in the similar case, there was no previous case and therefore, bail was granted.
But in the instant case, there are three adveRs.cases and therefore, it cannot be similar.
5.We have heard Mr.C.Mayilvahana Rajendran, learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point and perused the records carefully.
6.The petitioner has come before this Court challenging the detention order, wherein the detenu, who is the son of the petitioner herein, has been detained by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City and at paragraph- 5, it has been stated as follows: ".5.I am aware that Tr.Tajudeen @ 'Pet' Tajudeen, s/o.Samsudeen is now in remand in the ground case in B5 South Gate PS.
Cr.No.226/2013 u/s.392 r/w.397 and 506(ii) IPC and he is lodged at Central Prison, Madurai and the bail application filed on his behalf, in the ground case, before the J.No.IV, Madurai was dismissed, vide Crl.M.P.No.2290/2013 on 07.05.2013 and he has filed another bail application in the ground case before the Honourable Vacation Sessions Judge, Madurai, vide Cr.M.P.No.479/2013 is pending.
I am aware that Tr.Tajudeen @ 'Pei' Tajudeen, s/o.
Samsudeen has come out on bail in 1st, 2nd and 3rd adveRs.cases.
In a similar case registered in B5 South Gate PS Cr.No.21/2013, u/s.392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC, bail was granted to the accused Karikalan, vide Cr.M.P.No.1196/2013, dated 12.02.2013 by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai.
Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on pending bail application, in the said ground case in B5 South Gate PS Cr.No.226/2013 which he is in remand, since in similar cases bail was granted by the concerned Court or Higher Court.
If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
Further, the recouRs.to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Tr.Tajudeen @ 'Pei' Tajudeen, s/o.Samsudeen is a ".Goonda and there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in acts which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982".7.On a deep scrutiny of the above order, it is seen that the Detaining Authority has relied on a similar case registered in B5 South Gate Police Station in Crime No.21 of 2013 under Sections 392, r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC and bail was granted to the accused Karikalan by the Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai in Cr.M.P.No.1196 of 2013 on 12.02.2013 and therefore, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulge in further activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
8.On verification of the booklet at page No.171, the similar case consideration of the accused Karikalan was granted bail on the ground that on the date of occurrence, the petitioner therein has committed robbery of Rs.500/- from the defacto complainant by showing a knife and no previous case is pending against the petitioner therein and the Court concerned after consideration of the case and hearing the arguments of the leaned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the period of remand of the petitioner therein, the Court concerned has granted bail.
But in the present case, there are three adveRs.cases in Cr.Nos.579 of 2012, for offences under sections 387 and 506(ii) IPC, Cr.No.679 of 2012, for offence under section 436 IPC and 690 of 2012 for offences under sections 392 r/w.397, 506(ii) IPC and in many respects, they are not similar and therefore, the order of detention passed by the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, is hit by non-application of mind and the same is unsustainable in law.
9.Hence, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Tajudeen @ 'Pei' Tajudeen, Son of Samsudeen in No.37/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.05.2013, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
The above named detenu, who is detained in Central Prison, Madurai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
However, it is made clear that the present order shall not give any advantage to the detenu in any of the regular court proceedings.
It is open to the respondents to contest the matter effectively in a regular court and defend the prosecution.
er To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai District.
3.The Superintendent of Police, Madurai Central Prison, Madurai District.