Damayanthi Vs. Commissioner of Police of Chennai - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1168198
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnApr-21-2014
JudgeV.Dhanapalan
AppellantDamayanthi
RespondentCommissioner of Police of Chennai
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras date ::21. 04.2014 coram :: the hon'ble mr. justice v. dhanapalan and the hon'ble mr. justice g. chockalingam h.c.p. no:2442. of 2013 damayanthi w/o. duraikannan no:2. 75 thanthai periyar 3rd st. pathirimedu kumananchavadi chennai. ... petitioner -vs- 1. the commissioner of police chennai police chennai.2. the secretary to government of tamil nadu home, prohibition and excise dept. fort st. george chennai - 600 009. ... respondents .. .. .. writ petition under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with memo no:1208. bdfgissv/2013 dated 02.10.2013 and quash the same and to produce the body of the detenu raja , aged 24 years, s/o.duraikannan before this hon'ble court and set at liberty the detenu now detained in the central prison ii, puzhal, chennai, under act 14 / 1982. for petitioner :: m/s. r. rajarathinam for respondents :: mr. m. maharaja additional public prosecutor .. .. .. order (order of the court was made by v. dhanapalan, j.) petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 02.10.2013 made in memo no:1208. bdfgissv/2013 passed by the 1st respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a goonda and detained under the tamil nadu prevention of dangerous activities of bootleggers, drug- offenders, forest-offenders, goondas, immoral traffic offenders, sand offenders, slum-grabbers and video pirates act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as tamil nadu act 14 of 1982.2. as per the grounds of detention dated 02.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- sl. no.police station & crime no.section of law 1 t-5 thiruverkadu police station cr. no:158. of 2012 u/s. 379 @ 392 i.p.c. 2 t-12 poonamallee police station  cr. no:1801. of 2013 u/s. 384 & 506 (ii) i.p.c. 3 t-5 thiruverkadu police station  cr. no:1496. of 2013 u/s. 392 i.p.c. 4 t-16 nazarathpet police station  cr. no:742 of 2013 u/s. 379 i.p.c.3. in para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 15.09.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by inspector of police, t-16 nazarathpet police station in crime no.760 of 2013 under sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506 (ii) i.p.c. it is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 17.09.2013 at 10.00 hours and was produced before the judicial magistrate no: i,poonamallee, chennai, on the 18.09.2013 and remanded to judicial custody till 01.10.2013. the detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. challenging the said order, petitioner is before this court in this habeas corpus petition.4. at the threshold, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority has not given thoughtful consideration to the materials placed before him by the sponsoring authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. he further submits that, by the detention order since a person is going to be detained, the authority concerned is expected to look into the documents with more care and caution and then come to a conclusion to pass the detention order. according to him, in the case on hand, such a consideration is lacking and hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside. by referring to paragraph 4 of the detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the detaining authority has stated therein that the bail applications filed by the detenu in respect of crime nos:742. / 2013 and 760 / 2013 have been dismissed on 01.10.2013 and that the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out by filing another bail applications. according to him, when the bail applications were dismissed by the court only on 01.10.2013 and when the detention order is being passed on the very next day i.e. 02.10.2013, how the sponsoring authority would have had the knowledge that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file another bail application. according to the learned counsel, this clearly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this sole ground the detention order is liable to be set aside.5. we have heard the learned additional public prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.6. a perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenu on 02.10.2013 branding him as a ".goonda".. such an order contains the details of all the adverse case in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 15.09.2013. paragraph 4 of the impugned order reads as under :  4. i am aware that thiru.raja is in remand in t-16 nazarathpet p.s. cr. nos. 742/2013 and 760/2013 and he has filed bail application for t-16 nazarathpet police station crime nos. 742/2013 and 760/2013 before the court of judicial magistrate no:i, poonamallee, chennai, in crl. m.p. nos. 5189/2013 and 5188/2013 respectively and the same were dismissed on 01.10.2013. the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of thiru.raja are taking action to take him out on bail in t-16 nazarathpet p.s. cr.nos. 742/2013 and 760/.2013 by filing another bail applications before the appropriate court.  from the aforesaid version, it is clear that the bail applications filed by the detenu were dismissed on 01.10.2013. the detention order was passed on 02.10.2013. if that is the position, we fail to understand to how the sponsoring authority had come to know that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file another bail application within 24 hours of the dismissal of the bail application. this glaringly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and, hence, it cannot be sustained.7. accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely thiru.raja, s/o.duraikannan v. dhanapalan, j.and g. chockalingam, j.made in memo no:11208. bdfgissv/2013 dated 02.10.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. the above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. index : yes/no ( v.d.p.j.) ( g.c.j.) website : yes/no 21..04..2014 gp to 1. the state of tamil nadu rep. by its secretary to govt. prohibition and excise dept. fort st. george chennai 0 600 009.2. the commissioner of police egmore, chennai  600 008.3. the public prosecutor high court, madras. h.c.p. no:2442. of 2013
Judgment:

In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Date ::

21. 04.2014 Coram :: The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Dhanapalan and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Chockalingam H.C.P. No:

2442. of 2013 Damayanthi W/o. Duraikannan No:

2. 75 Thanthai Periyar 3rd St. Pathirimedu Kumananchavadi Chennai. ... Petitioner -vs- 1. The Commissioner of Police Chennai Police Chennai.

2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept. Fort St. George Chennai - 600 009. ... Respondents .. .. .. Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of the 1st respondent in connection with Memo No:

1208. BDFGISSV/2013 dated 02.10.2013 and quash the same and to produce the body of the detenu Raja , aged 24 years, S/o.Duraikannan before this Hon'ble Court and set at liberty the detenu now detained in the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, under Act 14 / 1982. For petitioner :: M/s. R. Rajarathinam For respondents :: Mr. M. Maharaja Additional Public Prosecutor .. .. .. ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by V. Dhanapalan, J.) Petitioner is the mother of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention dated 02.10.2013 made in Memo No:

1208. BDFGISSV/2013 passed by the 1st respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a Goonda and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug- Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, hereinafter referred to as Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

2. As per the grounds of detention dated 02.10.2013, the detenu came to the adverse notice in the following cases :- Sl. No.Police Station & Crime No.Section of Law 1 T-5 Thiruverkadu Police Station Cr. No:

158. of 2012 U/s. 379 @ 392 I.P.C. 2 T-12 Poonamallee Police Station  Cr. No:

1801. of 2013 U/s. 384 & 506 (ii) I.P.C. 3 T-5 Thiruverkadu Police Station  Cr. No:

1496. of 2013 U/s. 392 I.P.C. 4 T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station  Cr. No:742 of 2013 U/s. 379 I.P.C.

3. In para-3 of the grounds of detention, it is stated among other things that the detenu is also involved in the commission of the offence, which took place on 15.09.2013 morning, which led to the registration of a case by Inspector of Police, T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station in Crime No.760 of 2013 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 and 506 (ii) I.P.C. It is further stated that the detenu was arrested on 17.09.2013 at 10.00 hours and was produced before the Judicial Magistrate No: I,Poonamallee, Chennai, on the 18.09.2013 and remanded to judicial custody till 01.10.2013. The detaining authority, on being satisfied upon the materials placed before him that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention. Challenging the said order, petitioner is before this Court in this habeas corpus petition.

4. At the threshold, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the detaining authority has not given thoughtful consideration to the materials placed before him by the sponsoring authority to arrive at the subjective satisfaction to pass the detention order. He further submits that, by the detention order since a person is going to be detained, the authority concerned is expected to look into the documents with more care and caution and then come to a conclusion to pass the detention order. According to him, in the case on hand, such a consideration is lacking and hence, the detention order is liable to be set aside. By referring to paragraph 4 of the detention order, the learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the detaining authority has stated therein that the bail applications filed by the detenu in respect of Crime Nos:

742. / 2013 and 760 / 2013 have been dismissed on 01.10.2013 and that the sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to bail him out by filing another bail applications. According to him, when the bail applications were dismissed by the Court only on 01.10.2013 and when the detention order is being passed on the very next day i.e. 02.10.2013, how the sponsoring authority would have had the knowledge that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file another bail application. According to the learned counsel, this clearly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this sole ground the detention order is liable to be set aside.

5. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents on the above point and perused the material documents produced before us.

6. A perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detention order was clamped on the detenu on 02.10.2013 branding him as a ".Goonda".. Such an order contains the details of all the adverse case in which the petitioner is involved and the ground case registered on 15.09.2013. Paragraph 4 of the impugned order reads as under :  4. I am aware that Thiru.Raja is in remand in T-16 Nazarathpet P.S. Cr. Nos. 742/2013 and 760/2013 and he has filed bail application for T-16 Nazarathpet Police Station Crime Nos. 742/2013 and 760/2013 before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No:I, Poonamallee, Chennai, in Crl. M.P. Nos. 5189/2013 and 5188/2013 respectively and the same were dismissed on 01.10.2013. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Raja are taking action to take him out on bail in T-16 Nazarathpet P.S. Cr.Nos. 742/2013 and 760/.2013 by filing another bail applications before the appropriate Court.  From the aforesaid version, it is clear that the bail applications filed by the detenu were dismissed on 01.10.2013. The detention order was passed on 02.10.2013. If that is the position, we fail to understand to how the sponsoring authority had come to know that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to file another bail application within 24 hours of the dismissal of the bail application. This glaringly shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the detention order and, hence, it cannot be sustained.

7. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 1st respondent, detaining the detenu, namely Thiru.Raja, S/o.Duraikannan V. Dhanapalan, J.

and G. Chockalingam, J.

made in Memo No:

11208. BDFGISSV/2013 dated 02.10.2013, is quashed and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Index : Yes/No ( V.D.P.J.

) ( G.C.J.

) Website : Yes/No 21..04..2014 gp To 1. The State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary to Govt. Prohibition and Excise Dept. Fort St. George Chennai 0 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police Egmore, Chennai  600 008.

3. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No:

2442. of 2013