Judgment:
1. Challenge is made to an order of detention made by the second respondent in BDFGISSV No.101/2009 dated 20.10.2009, whereby the husband of the petitioner Ramesh @ Samy @ Thirulogachandar was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as "Goonda".
2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.
3. Concededly, pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in 21 cases viz. (1)R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.747 of 2009 for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (2) R3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.830 of 2009 for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (3) S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.504 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (4) S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.580 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (5) S-7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.550 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (6) S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.457 of 2009 for the offence under Section 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (7) J3 Guindy Police Station Crime No.680 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (8) S-15 Selaiyur Police Station Crime No.881 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (9) R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.702 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (10) R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.722 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (11) R-1 Mambalam Police Station Crime No.723 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code; (12) S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.509 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (13) S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.730 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (14) R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.1109 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (15) S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.750 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (16) S-13 Chrompet Police Station Crime No.390 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (17) S7 Madipakkam Police Station Crime No.722 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457, 511 @ 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (18) S-1 St. Thomas Mount Police Station Crime No.989 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (19) S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.805 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (20) S-10 Pallikaranai Police Station Crime No.837 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code and (21) S-8 Adambakkam Police Station Crime No.585 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 394 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 341, 392 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and also the ground case in Crime No.768 of 2009 registered by S-7 Madipakkam Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 506(ii) and 397 of the Indian Penal Code for the occurrence that had taken place on 28.9.2009 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 29.9.2009, the Detaining authority, after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge.
4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that admittedly, the detenu was arrested in four adverse cases and one ground case on the same day viz. 28.9.2009, but intimation was given only in ground case and not in adverse cases. Learned counsel, taking the Court to paragraph 4 of the order of detention, would submit that the Authorities have observed that there was a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail despite the fact that the applications filed in all the cases viz.Crime Nos504, 550, 722 and 768 of 2009 were all dismissed on 14.10.2009 and thus, the observation was without any basis at all.
5. Learned counsel would further add that the Detaining Authority has pointed out that in similar cases, bails were granted, but the particulars of similar cases were not given. Learned counsel added further that page No.223 of the booklet contains the special report, but it did not contain whether the document was signed and it was considered by the Authorities concerned. Therefore, all these grounds would be suffice to set aside the impugned order of detention.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
7. As could be seen from the above, an order of detention came to be passed against the detenu after branding him as "Goonda", which is the subject matter of challenge in this habeas corpus petition. It is not in controversy that the detenu is involved in 21 adverse cases and also one ground case referred to above. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detenu was arrested in four adverse cases and also one ground case on 28.9.2009, but when intimation was given, as could be seen from page No.202 of the booklet, it was given only in respect of ground case and not in respect of adverse cases. Hence, it does not satisfy the legal requirements. It must be informed to the family of the detenu in each and every case.
8. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Authorities observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Paragraph 4 of the detention order reads as follows:- " 4. I am aware that Thiru Ramesh @ Samy @ Thirulogachandar is in remand in S.7 Madipakkam police Station Cr.Nos.504/2009, 550/2009, 722/2009 and 768/2009 and he has moved a bail application before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Alandur, Chennai in Dis.Nos.4135/2009, 4141/2009, 4134/2009 and 4136/2009 respectively for S.7 Madipakkam Police Nos.504/2009, 550/2009, 722/2009 and 768/2009 and the same were dismissed on 14.10.2009. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases, by filing another bail application before the Lower Court, or Court of Sessions or the Hon'ble High Court, since in similar cases, bails are granted by the above Courts after a lapse of time. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse 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 fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Ramesh @ Samy @ Thirulogachandar is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982."
9. From the very reading, it would be quite clear that bail applications were filed in Crime Nos.504/2009, 550/2009, 722/2009 and 768/2009. In all the cases, bail applications were dismissed on 14.10.2009. Hence, it is quite clear that on the day when the detention order was passed, no bail application was filed in anyone of the cases before the Court of law. But the Authorities have observed that in similar cases, bail was granted, but no particulars in respect of the similar cases were mentioned and hence the observation made by the Authorities that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail cannot be said to be any material much less cogent material as required under law.
10. This Court is able to see force in the last ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Needless to say that a special report placed by the sponsoring authority before the Detaining authority was relied on by him. If to be so, it should contain all the necessary particulars. When it was looked into, as could be seen from page No.223 of the booklet, it did not contain the date on which it was actually signed and filed by the sponsoring Authority, which is found to be defective. All these grounds would be suffice to set aside the detention order. 11.. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in in BDFGISSV No.101/2009 dated 20.10.2009. The detenu viz. Ramesh @ Samy @ Thirulogachandar, aged 33 years, son of Madhanagopal, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.