Kalpana Vs. Secretary to Government - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/964547
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnFeb-21-2013
JudgeK.N.BASHA
AppellantKalpana
RespondentSecretary to Government
Excerpt:
in the high court of judicature at madras dated 21 02.2013 coram the honourable mr . justice k.n.basha and the honourable mr. justice p.devadass h.c.p. nos. 2191, 2199, 2232, 2276, 2327, 2328, 2329, 2330, 2332, 2333, 2429, 2489, 2490, 2492, 2509, 2510, 2511 of 2012 hcp. no.2191/2012 ----------------- kalpana .. petitioner versus 1.the secretary to government state of tamil nadu home, prohibition & excise department fort st. george, chenna”009. 2.the district collector and district magistrate krishnagiri, krishnagiri district. .. respondents prayer:- habeas corpus petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in sc.no.40/2012 dated 04.09.2012,.....
Judgment:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 21 02.2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR . JUSTICE K.N.BASHA AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.DEVADASS H.C.P. Nos. 2191, 2199, 2232, 2276, 2327, 2328, 2329, 2330, 2332, 2333, 2429, 2489, 2490, 2492, 2509, 2510, 2511 of 2012 HCP. No.2191/2012 ----------------- Kalpana .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.40/2012 dated 04.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Laghumaiah, S/o.Muniyappan, aged about 64 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2199/2012 ----------------- Kalpana .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.38/2012 dated 04.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Varadharajan S/o.Thimmaya @ Thimme Gowdu aged about 48 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2232/2012 ----------------- S.Purushothaman .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector cum District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records culminating passing of order of detention SC.No.39/2012 dated 04.09.2012 from the file of 2nd respondent and produce the body of detenu S.Purusothaman @ Purusothama Reddy aged 35 years, S/o.Sambangi Rama Reddy, Gurupara Palli village, Thottauppanur Post, Thali Police Station limit, Thenkanikottai Taluk, Krishnagiri District, now detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and thereafter, set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Margabandhu For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2276/2012 ----------------- Sundaravalli .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.46/2012 dated 24.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Ramachandran S/o.Thimmaya @ Thimme Gowdu, aged about 44 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.I.Subramaniam, Senior Counsel for Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2327/2012 ----------------- Kalpana .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.41/2012 dated 15.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Kesavan @ Kesavamoorthy, S/o.Thimmarayan, aged about 32 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2328/2012 ----------------- Vijaya .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.37/2012 dated 04.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Periyasamy S/o.Mallappa aged about 42 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2329/2012 ----------------- S.Ganesh .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.44/2012 dated 15.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Velu, S/o.Seenivasan, aged about 45 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2330/2012 ----------------- Shanaz .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.45/2012 dated 15.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Kalil, S/o.Majid Sahib, aged about 45 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor CP. No.2332/2012 ---------------- Siddappa .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.43/2012 dated 15.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Raja @ Rajappa @ Sitharaj, S/o.Sithappa, aged about 28 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2333/2012 ----------------- Siddappa .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. 3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Salem. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.42/2012 dated 15.09.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Pappanna, S/o.Sithappa aged about 38 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2429/2012 ----------------- M.Srinivasan .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. 2.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chenna”

009. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent in connection with SC.No.49/2012 dated 15.10.2012 and quash the same and to produce the body of the detenu M.S.K.Moorthy @ Srikandamoorthy, S/o.Marappan, before this Court and set at liberty the detenu M.S.K.Moorthy @ Srikandamoorthy, now detained in Central Prison, Salem under Act 14/82. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Rajarathinam For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2489/2012 ----------------- Palanisamy .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.51/2012 dated 15.10.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Raman @ Lakshmanan @ Kullakaruppan @ Pattasu, S/o.Chinnaraj, aged about 24 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2490/2012 ----------------- Rajesh .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.48/2012 dated 15.10.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Murali @ Muralikumar S/o.Chinnappa aged about 28 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2492/2012 ----------------- R.Manikandan .. Petitioner Versus 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri. 2.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat, Chenna”

009. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent herein SC.No.50/2012 dated 15.10.2012 and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Veeramani, Male, aged 29 years, son of Ranganathan, who is now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.G.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2509/2012 ----------------- Manjunath .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.53/2012 dated 30.10.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Srinivasan, S/o.Jayaraman aged about 42 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2510/2012 ----------------- N.M.Gopal .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.52/2012 dated 30.10.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.Srinivasan @ Seeni, S/o.Kullappa, aged about 35 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor HCP. No.2511/2012 ----------------- Raghupathi .. Petitioner Versus 1.The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009. 2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Krishnagiri, Krishnagiri District. .. Respondents Prayer:- Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent in SC.No.54/2012 dated 30.10.2012, set aside the same, direct to produce the detenu Mr.S.K.Murali, S/o.Sri Ramulu aged about 30 years and presently detained in Central Prison, at Salem before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira For Respondents : Mr.S.Shunmugavelayutham, Public Prosecutor COMMON ORDER (Order of the Court was made by K.N.BASHA, J.

& P.DEVADASS, J.) The impugned Detention Orders dated 04.09.2012 [4 Nos.] ; 15.09.2012 [5 Nos.] ; 24.09.2012 [1 No.]; 15.10.2012 [4 Nos.] and 30.10.2012 [3 Nos.] are under challenge in the above Habeas Corpus Petitions. The detenus in all these matters have been implicated in one and the same ground case registered in Crime No.143/2012 for the offences u/s.147, 148, 341, 120-B, 307, 302 IPC read with 25[1][b] of Indian Arms Act and u/s.5 of the Explosive Substances Act on the file of the Uthannapalli Police Station. The Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District is also one and the same in all these matters and as such, the above Habeas Corpus Petitions have been taken together for final hearing and for passing the following common order.

2. Totally 17 Detention Orders have been passed by the Detaining Authority on the following respective dates:- [a] Four detention orders were passed on 04.09.2012 by the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District in HCP.Nos.2191/2012; 2199/2012; 2232/2012 and 2328/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No HCP No. SC.No Date of the Name of the Detenu Name of the Detention petitioners Order and their relationship with the detenus --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2191. 2012 40/2012 04.09.2012 Laghumaiah Kalpana - Daughter --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2199. 2012 38/2012 04.09.2012 Varadharajan Kalpana-Sister-in-law --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2232. 2012 39/2012 04.09.2012 S.Purushothaman Detenu himself is the petitioner --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2328. 2012 37/2012 04.09.2012 Periyasamy Vijaya-Wife --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [b] On 15.09.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed five detention orders in HCP.Nos.2327/2012; 2329/2012; 2330/2012; 2332/2012 and 2333/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl.No HCP No. SC.No Date of the Name of the Detenu Name of the Detention Order petitioners and their relationship with the detenus ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2327. 2012 41/2012 15.09.2012 Kesavan Kalpana - Cousin sister ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2329. 2012 44/2012 15.09.2012 Velu Ganesh - Brother ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2330. 2012 45/2012 15.09.2012 Kalil Shanaz - Wife ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2332. 2012 43/2012 15.09.2012 Pappanna Siddappa - Brother ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2333. 2012 42/2012 15.09.2012 Raja @ Siddappa - Brother Rajappa @ Sidaraj ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [c] The Detaining Authority also passed a Detention order on 24.09.2012 in HCP.No.2276/2012 and the detenu and his relationship with the petitioner is as follows:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl. HCP No. SC.No Date of the Name of the Name of the No. Detention Detenu petitioners and their Order relationship with the detenus -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2276. 2012 46/2012 24.09.2012 Ramachandran Sundaravalli - Mother - in - law ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [d] On 15.10.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed four detention orders in HCP.Nos.2429/2012; 2489/2012; 2490/2012 and 2492/2012 and the detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sl.No HCP No. SC.No Date of the Name of the Name of the Detention Detenu petitioners and Order their relationship with the detenus -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2429. 2012 49/2012 15.10.2012 M.S.K.Moorthy @ Srinivasan - Brother Srikandamoorthy -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2489. 2012 51/2012 15.10.2012 Raman @ Lakshmanan @ Kullakaruppan @ Pattasu Palanisamy - Uncle -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2490. 2012 48/2012 15.10.2012 Murali @ Muralikumar Rajesh - Brother -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2492. 2012 50/2012 15.10.2012 Veeramani Manikandan - Younger Brother ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [e] Lastly, on 30.10.2012, the Detaining Authority has passed three detention orders in HCP.Nos.2509/2012; 2510/2012 and 2511/2012. The detenus and their relationship with the respective petitioners in the said petitions are as follows:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sl. HCP No. SC.No Date of the Name of the Name of the No. Detention Detenu petitioners and Order their relationship with the detenus --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2509. 2012 53/2012 30.10.2012 Srinivasan Manjunath - Son --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2510. 2012 52/2012 30.10.2012 Srinivasan @ Seeni Gopal - Uncle --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------”

2511. 2012 54/2012 30.10.2012 S.K.Murali Raghupathi - Brother --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. Ramachandran, detenu in HCP.No.2276/2012, is a sitting Member of Tamil Nadu Legislative Assembly [M.L.A] from Thalli Constituency, Krishnagiri District. Laghumaiah [detenu in HCP.No.2191/2012] is the father-in-law; Varadharajan [detenu in HCP.No.2199/2012] is the elder brother and Kesavan [detenu in HCP.No.2327/2012] is the brother-in-law of the detenu Ramachandran. The above detenus have been implicated in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 on the allegation of conspiracy.

4. Apart from the above said detenus, Periasamy [detenu in HCP.No.2328/2012]; Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy [detenu in HCP.No.2232/2012] and Kalil [detenu in HCP.No.2330/2012] also alleged to have participated in the conspiracy. The other detenus alleged to have been involved directly in the occurrence in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012.

5. The occurrence in the ground case is said to have taken place on 05.07.2012 at 5.00 a.m. in the agricultural fields of the deceased in Palepuram and in the said occurrence, two of the accused persons who have been directly alleged to have been participated said to have used country made guns and the other accused said to have used deadly weapons, viz., aruvals and country made bombs resulting in the death of the deceased Palanisamy. Against the detenus, the Detaining Authority also noticed certain adverse cases registered against them earlier along with the ground case. On a perusal of the materials placed by the Sponsoring Authority, the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction and came to the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of the detenus to come out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and accordingly, passed the above said Detention orders.

6. Mr.I.Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner in HCP.No.2191/2012 [in respect of the detenu Laghumaiah], while assailing the impugned Detention Order dated 04.09.2012, has put forward the following contentions:- [1]The Detaining Authority passed the impugned Detention Order on 04.09.2012 mainly on the basis of the dismissal of the bail application filed by the detenu on 03.09.2012 and it is highly improbable for the Detaining Authority to apply his mind by perusing the entire materials available on record which runs to 450 pages within a day. [2]In paragraph 3 of the English version of the grounds of Detention, the Detaining Authority has mentioned the name of the detenu as Varadharajan in two places, more particularly, stating that the Detaining Authority is satisfied that an order of detention should be passed against the said Varadharajan under Act 14/1982. Again, the Detaining Authority has mentioned the names of the detenus Varadharajan and Periasamy in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Tamil Version of the grounds of detention instead of the detenu Laghumaiah and as such, the Detention order was passed in total non-application of mind. [3]The Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction without any cogent materials available on record to the effect that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case without even mentioning about the filing of any subsequent bail application in the said ground case after specifically stating that the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case was dismissed on 03.09.2012 in Crl.MP.No.1515/2012 by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri or without even stating that action has been taken by his relatives by filing such application before the same Court or the Higher Courts. Learned Senior Counsel, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on the following decisions:- [a] REKHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244.[b] PARAPATTY SURESH @ SURESHKUMAR AND OTHERS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SALEM CITY POLICE, SALEM AND OTHERS reported in 2012 [2] L.W. [Crl.] 597; and [c] An unreported decision of a Division Bench of this Court in HCP [MD] No.719/2012 [KANDASAMY Vs. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOME, PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI-9 AND OTHERS] 7. Mr.Margabandu, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.2232/2012 [in respect of the detenu Purushothaman @ Purushothama Reddy]; Mr.Sreenivasan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in HCP.No.2492/2012 [in respect of the detenu Veeramani] and Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira, learned counsel for the petitioners in HCP.Nos.2199, 2330, 2332, 2333 and 2489/2012 [in respect of the detenus Varadharajan, Kalil, Pappanna, Raja @ Rajappa @ Sidappa and Raman @ Lakshmanan @ Kullakaruppan @ Pattasu] would contend that the impugned Detention Orders dated 04.09.2012 and 15.10.2012 were passed by the Detaining Authority in total non-application of mind and has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in the absence of any cogent materials available on record. It is contended that the Detaining Authority has specifically stated that the detenus have not filed any bail application in the ground case so far and in spite of the same, without any materials available on record, he has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in a mechanical fashion stating that the detenus are likely to come out on bail and in the event of the detenus coming out on bail, they would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

8. Mr.R.Rajarathinam, learned counsel for the petitioner in HCP.No.2429/2012 [in respect of the detenu M.S.K.Moorthy @ Srikandamoorthy] and Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in HCP.Nos.2276, 2327, 2328, 2329, and 2490 of 2012 [in respect of the detenus Ramachandran, Kesavan, Periyasamy, Velu, Murali @ Muralikumar and Srinivasan] would contend that the bail applications filed by the detenus in the ground case were dismissed by the Courts below concerned on 25.09.2012 and 03.09.2012 respectively and the detenus except the detenu in HCP.No.2276/2012 [Ramachandran], have not filed any subsequent bail applications as the said detenu has filed a bail application before this Court in Crl.OP.No.20859/2012 and the same was pending on the date of passing of the Detention order dated 24.09.2012. It is further contended that the Detaining Authority, however, in the absence of any cogent materials available on record and in total non-application of mind, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that there is a real possibility of the detenus coming out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in such further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

9. Mr.A.D.Jagdish Chandira, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in HCP.Nos.2509, 2510 and 2511/2012 [in respect of the detenus Srinivasan, Srinivasan @ Seeni and S.K.Murali] would contend that though the detenus have been granted bail by this Court in the ground case in Crl.OP.Nos.25305 and 23557/2012 on 16.10.2012 but they were shown formal arrest by the police in Cr.No.34/2012 on the file of the Uthannapalli Police Station and they have been in the continuous remand in the Central Prison, Salem and they have not preferred any bail application in respect of the said case in Cr.No.34/2012.

10. Per contra, Mr.S.Shanmugavelayutham, learned Public Prosecutor would vehemently contend that there is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned Detention Orders passed by the Detaining Authority. It is contended that the Detaining Authority, only after applying his mind and only after perusing and scrutinizing the entire materials produced by the Sponsoring Authority, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction and has passed the impugned Detention Orders. Learned Public Prosecutor would put forward the following contentions:- [1]Merely because the Detaining Authority has wrongly mentioned the name of the detenu as Varadharajan and Periyasamy instead of Laghumaiah [in HCP.NO.2191/2012], it cannot be stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention Order without application of mind and it is only a typographical error and no prejudice is caused to the said detenu. [2]There is no infirmity or illegality in passing the Detention order dated 04.09.2012, though the bail application was dismissed on the previous day of passing of the Detention Order, i.e., 03.09.2012 and it is possible for the Detaining Authority to go through the entire papers and arrive at the subjective satisfaction even in one day. [3]The Sponsoring Authority has forwarded all the documents along with the request to pass Detention orders, as per the proposal affidavit dated 18.08.2012 and therefore, there is enough time available for the Detaining Authority to go through the same and arrive at the subjective satisfaction. [4]The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in REKHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244.will not apply to the facts of the instant cases as the said case deals only in respect of the pendancy of the bail applications. Learned Public Prosecutor, in support of his contentions, has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in A.K.GOPALAN AND ANOTHER Vs. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA reported in AIR 196.SC 81.:

1966. Cri. L.J.

602. 11. We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival contentions put forward by either side and perused the entire materials available on record including the impugned detention orders and its grounds.

12. From the above factual background and the contentions put forward by either side, the crux of questions that arise for consideration is:- [a] Whether the Sponsoring Authority has produced the entire material documents including the copies of the dismissal orders of the bail applications dated 03.09.2012 and whether the Detaining Authority was able to peruse the entire voluminous material documents running to 450 pages in one day? [b] Whether the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in total non-application of mind and in the absence of cogent materials available on record? [c] Whether the impugned Detention Orders passed by the Detaining Authority is in conformity with the rights guaranteed under Article 21 and 22[5] of the Constitution of India? 13. Now, let us consider the questions in detail involved in these matters. I. WHETHER THE SPONSORING AUTHORITY HAS PRODUCED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE DISMISSAL ORDERS OF THE BAIL APPLICATIONS DATED 03 09.2012 AND WHETHER THE DETAINING AUTHORITY WAS ABLE TO PERUSE THE ENTIRE VOLUMINOUS MATERIAL DOCUMENTS RUNNING TO 45.PAGES IN ONE DAY:- [a] At the outset, it is to be stated that the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and the District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, has passed as many as 17 Detention Orders on different dates in batches. As far as the present question is concerned, the Detaining Authority has passed four Detention Orders on 04.09.2012 in HCP.No.2191/2012, 2199/2012, 2232/2012 and 2328/2012 and among these four petitions, the bail applications filed by the detenus in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 [in HCP.Nos.2191/2012 and 2328/2012], were dismissed on 03.09.2012 and in respect of the remaining two petitions, viz., HCP.Nos.2199/2012 and 2232/2012 , the Detaining Authority has made a specific and definite statement to the effect that the detenus have not preferred any bail applications in the ground case so far. The fact remains that, a perusal of the original documents produced before us would show that the Sponsoring Authority ought to have produced the material documents, viz., dismissal orders of the bail applications, only after its dismissal on 03.09.2012 and the Sponsoring Authority could have obtained the order copies either in the evening of 03.09.2012 or in the morning of 04.09.2012. Such being the position, it is possible that the dismissal order of the bail applications could have been produced by the Sponsoring Authority only on 04.09.2012 morning and as such, it is to be considered whether the Detaining Authority has perused the entire voluminous material documents running to 450 pages and passed the four Detention Orders on the same day, i.e., on 04.09.2012 in HCP.Nos.2191/2012; 2199/2012 ; 2232/2012 and 2328/2012. In our considered view, it is highly improbable for the Detaining Authority to apply its mind to the entire material documents available on record for arriving at the subjective satisfaction within a short span of time and that too, within a day. Though the learned Public Prosecutor took enormous pain to contend that the materials have already been produced before the Detaining Authority by the Sponsoring Authority on 18.08.2012 itself, it is seen that the said contention is not substantiated by any materials available on record. A perusal of the original documents produced before this Court reveals that the Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit dated 18.08.2012 requesting the Detaining Authority to take necessary steps for passing Detention Order in respect of the detenu Laghumaiah in HCP.No.2191/2012. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit, the Sponsoring Authority has stated about the implication of the detenu Laghumaiah in respect of the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 and in respect of the said ground case, it is stated that necessary documents relating to the case are enclosed. But, the said annexure or enclosure is not available or produced before this Court. A perusal of the original documents further reveals that there is absolutely no materials to substantiate the contention of the learned Public Prosecutor that the entire materials have been placed before the Detaining Authority already on 18.08.2012 itself. It is also pertinent to note that the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction only on the basis of the dismissal of the bail application orders passed on 03.09.2012 in respect of HCP.Nos.2191/2012 and 2328/2012, stating that the detenus may file further bail applications. It is to be stated at this stage that even for that, there is no materials available on record. It is not stated by the Detaining Authority that neither the friends nor the relatives of the detenus are taking steps to file subsequent bail applications in the ground case. It is also relevant to note that on the same day, i.e., on 04.09.2012, the Detaining Authority, as already pointed out, passed two more Detention Orders in HCP.Nos.2199/2012 and 2232/2012 and such being the position, whether the Detaining Authority had enough and sufficient time to apply its mind to the entire voluminous material documents in passing the four Detention Orders in one day, is highly doubtful. [b] The yet another factor to be borne in mind of this Court is that the Detaining Authority has passed 4 Detention Orders on the same day, i.e., on 04.09.2012, in respect of the detenus Laghumaiah, Varadharajan, Purushothaman and Periyasamy in HCP.Nos.2191, 2199, 2232 and 2328/2012. As a result, in HCP.No.2191/2012, the Detaining Authority has mentioned in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the English and Tamil versions of the Grounds of Detention, the name of the detenu has been mentioned as "Varadharajan" and "Periyasamy" instead of "Laghumaiah". It is pertinent to note that the said Varadharajan and Periyasamy are the co-detenus as they have been implicated in the same ground case and they are the detenus in HCP.Nos.2199/2012 and 2328/2012. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the statement made by the Detaining Authority in the Detention Order mentioning different names of the detenu reflects the total non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority and the same would prejudice the detenu. However, we are of the considered view that the mentioning of the names of the other detenus in the Detention Order of the detenu Laghumaiah dated 04.09.2012 in HCP.No.2191/2012 is only due to the confusion that had crept in the mind of the Detaining Authority and it would amount to not only a mistake, but the same reflects inadequacy of time for the Detaining Authority to apply his mind by perusing the entire voluminous material documents running to 450 pages and to arrive at the subjective satisfaction in respect of each and everyone of the detenus relating to the Detention Orders passed on the same day, i.e., on 04.09.2012. In our considered view, the said factor also reveals, not a mere mistake or typographical error as contended by the learned Public Prosecutor, but reflects the total confusion crept in the mind of the Detaining Authority in scrutinizing the materials documents and passing the four Detention Orders at a stretch on the same day, i.e., 04.09.2012. Though it cannot be stated that the same has resulted in any prejudice to the detenus, we cannot ignore and overlook the said factor as the same would reflect the total non-application of mind by the Detaining Authority to the entire materials available on record for arriving at the subjective satisfaction which would definitely vitiate the Detention Orders. [c] Learned Public Prosecutor, on instructions from the Sponsoring Authority, would submit before this Court that a bail order alone was produced with a covering letter before the Detaining Authority after the dismissal of the bail application on 03.09.2012 and the other materials were already produced before the Detaining Authority on 18.08.2012 itself and even in respect of such submission, there is no material placed before this Court. Learned Public Prosecutor relied on paragraph 7 of the decision made in A.K.GOPALAN's case [cited supra] reported in 1966 [2] SCR 42.: AIR 196.S 81.:

1966. Crl. LJ 602.The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision are not applicable to the facts of the instance cases. As far as A.K.GOPALAN's case is concerned, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that in the said case, the documents have been produced before the Detaining Authority long back and the same were under consideration of the Government of India for quite some time and thereafter, the Detention Orders were passed after arriving at the subjective satisfaction. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has placed reliance on the counter filed by the Government of India for arriving at the above said conclusion. But, in the instant case, it is to be stated that even in the counter filed in HCP.No.2191/2012, the Detaining Authority has not stated that the documents have been produced even in the month of August 2012, i.e., on 18.08.2012. Learned Public Prosecutor contended that this point is raised by the detenus only for the first time before this Court and as such, in the absence of any specific plea in the affidavits of the detenus, their contentions cannot be accpeted. We are unable to countenance such contention of the learned Public Prosecutor for the simple reason that while dealing with the matters relating to the challenge of Detention orders in a Habeas Corpus Petition, it is well settled that it is always open to the detenus to raise any legal points even at the time of arguments. [d] It is relevant to refer the decision of Apex Court reported in 1987 SCC (Crl) 674 : (1987) 4 SCC 5.(Mohinuddin v. District Magistrate) wherein in para 4 the Apex Court held thus, "4. It was an improper exercise of power on the part of the High Court in disallowing the writ petition on the ground of imperfect pleadings. Normally, writ petitions are decided on the basis of affidavits and the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise grounds not taken in the petition at the hearing. The same rule cannot be applied to a petition for grant of a writ of habeas corpus. It is enough for the detenu to say that he is under wrongful detention, and the burden lies on the detaining authority to satisfy the court that the detention is not illegal or wrongful and that the petitioner is not entitled to the relief claimed. This Court on more occasions than one has dealt with the question and it is now well settled that it is incumbent on the State to satisfy the court that the detention of the petitioner/detenu was legal and in conformity not only with the mandatory provisions of the Act but also strictly in accord with the constitutional safeguards embodied in Article 22(5). ........" (Emphasis Supplied) The principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decision cited supra would make it abundantly clear that it is always open to the detenu to raise his point even during the course of hearing. As far as the cases on hand are concerned, it is to be pointed out that the detenus have raised a general point to the effect that there is a total non-application of mind of the Detaining Authority before arriving at the subjective satisfaction. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we are constrained to answer the first question in favour of the detenus. II. WHETHER THE DETAINING AUTHORITY HAS ARRIVED AT THE SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF COGENT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD FOR COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE IS A REAL POSSIBILITY OR LIKELIHOOD OF THE DETENUS COMING OUT ON BAIL: [a] As far as this important question is concerned, it is pertinent to note that in respect of 17 Detention Orders, the Detaining Authority has made specific and definite statements to the effect that the detenus have not preferred any bail applications or the detenus have filed bail applications and the same were dismissed or the detenus were granted bail by this Court but they were shown formal arrest in some other case and they are in the prison as on the date of passing of the Detention orders. But there is no statement to the effect that the detenus have preferred any subsequent bail applications or the relatives are taking steps to file bail applications in respect of the ground case etc., and in the absence of cogent materials, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenus are likely to come out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in such further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [b] Now, let us deal with the specific statements made by the Detaining Authority in the 17 Detention Orders. The Detaining Authority has specifically stated in paragraph 4 of the respective Grounds of Detention, viz., in HCP.Nos.2191/2012, 2276/2012, 2327/2012, 2328/2012, 2329/2012, 2429/2012 and 2490/2012 as follows:- HCP.No.2191/2012:- ".......... 4.I am aware that Thiru Laghumaiah, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II, Hosur on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012 u/s.147, 148, 341, 120-B, 307, 302 and 506[ii] IPV r/w 25[1][b] of Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended up to 07.09.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1515/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future 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............" HCP.No.2276/2012: "4.I am aware that Thiru Ramachandran was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 05.10.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1371/2012 and the same was dismissed on 24.08.2012. He has also filed a bail application before the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in Crl.OP.No.20849/2012 and the same is pending. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...." HCP.No.2327/2012 "4.I am aware that Thiru Kesavan@ Kesavamoorthy was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, not II, Hosur on 15.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 28.08.2012. His remand has been extended up to 25.09.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1487/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...." HCP.No.2328/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Periyasamy was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 11.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 25.07.2012. His remand has been extended upto 05.09.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1429/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...." HCP.No.2329/2012: "4.I am aware that Thiru Velu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 16.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 30.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 27.09.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1487/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or higher courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...." HCP.No.2429/2012 "4.I am aware that Thiru M.S.K.Moorthy @ Srikandamoorthy was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, not II, Hosur on 18.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 31.08.2012. His remand has been extended up to 18.10.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1690/2012 and the same was dismissed on 25.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2490/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Murali @ Muralikumar was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 03.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 17.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 18.10.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1517/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. There is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the ground case before the same Court or Higher Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order...." In the above said statements, it is specifically stated by the Detaining Authority that the bail applications filed by the detenus in respect of the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 were dismissed on 24.08.2012, 03.09.2012 and 25.09.2012 in Crl.MP.Nos.1690, 1515, 1487, 1429, 1517 & 1371/2012. It is not stated by the Detaining Authority as to whether the detenus have filed any subsequent bail applications before the same court or before the Higher Courts or not and whether the relatives of the detenus are taking steps to file further bail applications. As far as HCP.No.2276/2012 [in respect of the detenu Ramachandran] is concerned, it is specifically stated by the Detaining Authority that the bail application filed by the detenu has been dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Krishnagiri on 24.08.2012; but he has not whispered a word about the filing of bail applications by the said detenu in 10 adverse cases as it is stated by the Detaining Authority that in those 10 cases, investigations are pending and he has also not whispered a word about filing of any bail applications in respect of those 10 adverse cases. In the absence of any cogent materials available on record, the Detaining Authority has observed to the effect that there is a real possibility of the detenus coming out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in such further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. In our considered view, such a specific statement made/ground taken by the Detaining Authority for arriving at the subjective satisfaction makes it crystal clear that he has passed the impugned Detention Orders, not only in total non-application of mind but also in the absence of any cogent materials available on record. [c] The Detaining Authority, in the following Habeas Corpus Petitions has made specific statements in the respective Grounds in the impugned Detention Orders which are as follows:- HCP.No.2199/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Varadharajan was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 07.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Varadharajan are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2232/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 16.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 30.07.2012. His remand has been extended upto 05.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2330/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Kalil was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 29.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 08.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 18.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Thiru Purushothaman @ Purushothamareddy are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2332/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Raja @ Rajappa @ Chiithraj was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 15.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 28.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 26.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Raja @ Rajappa @ Chiitharaj are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2333/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Pappanna was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 24.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 07.09.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Pappanna are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2489/2012 "4.I am aware that Thiru Raman @ Lakshmanan @ Kullakaruppan @ Pattasu was produced before the Judicial Magistrate, not II, Hosur on 27.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 08.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 15.10.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Raman @ Lakshmanan @ Kullakaruppan @ Pattasu are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." HCP.No.2492/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Veeramani was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 25.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 08.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 15.10.2012. He has not filed any bail petition so far in the ground case. However, it is learnt from secret sources that some of his relatives of Thiru Pappanna are taking efforts to move bail applications to take him on bail by filing a bail application in the ground case [ie] Uthanappalli Police Station cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act, before appropriate Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order............." A reading of the above Detention Orders would reveal that the Detaining Authority has made a specific statement to the effect that the respective detenus have not preferred any bail applications in the ground case in Cr.No.143/2012 so far, i.e., on the date of passing of the respective Detention Orders and also made a vague and bald statement to the effect that he has learnt from secret sources that the relatives of the respective detenus are taking steps to file bail applications in respect of the ground case and came to a conclusion and inferred that there is a likelihood of the detenus coming out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in such further activities, which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [d] Though the learned Public Prosecutor contended that in certain matters, this Court granted bail to the three of the detenus, viz., Srinivasan, Srinivasan @ Seeni and Murali @ Murali Kumar in HCP.Nos.2509, 2510 & 2511/2012 and in such an event, the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in REKHA's case [cited supra] are not applicable, we are constrained to point out that even in respect of those cases, the detenus have been arrested subsequently and they are continued to be in the prison. It is worthwhile to extract the relevant paragraphs stated in the respective Grounds of Detention:- HCP.No.2509/2012, ".......... 4.I am aware that Thiru Srinivasan, was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II, Hosur on 10.08.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012 u/s.147, 148, 341, 120-B, 307, 302 and 506[ii] IPV r/w 25[1][b] of Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 17.08.2012. His remand had been extended up to 01.11.2012. He has filed a bail application to grant bail in the above said case before the District Principal Sessions Court, Krishnagiri in Crl.MP.No.1517/2012 and the same was dismissed on 03.09.2012. I am also aware that he has obtained bail order in the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in Criminal Original Petition No.23505/2012 dated 16.10.2012. The Inspector of Police, Royakottai Circle, formally arrested the accused Srinivasan on 29.09.2012 at Central Prison, Salem, in Uthanappalli PS Cr.No.34/2012 and his remand has been extended up to 01.11.2012. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future 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............" HCP.No.2510/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru Srinivasan @ Seeni was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 16.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 30.07.2012. His remand has been extended upto 01.11.2012. In this case, he obtained bail order in the Hon'ble High Court Chennai, in Criminal Original Petition No.23557/2012 dated 16.10.2012. The Inspector of Police, Royakottai circle, formally arrested him on 29.09.2012 at Central Prison, Salem, in Uthanappalli PS Cr.No.34/2012. His remand has been extended upto 01.11.2012. If he comes out on bail in the above said cases, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order......." HCP.No.2511/2012:- "4.I am aware that Thiru S.K.Murali was produced before the Judicial Magistrate not II Hosur, on 25.07.2012 in Uthanapalli Police Station Cr.No.143/2012, u/s.147, 148, 341, 120[b], 307, 302 IPC r/w 24[1][b] Arms Act and 5 of Explosive Substance Act and was remanded to Judicial custody and lodged at the Central Prison, Salem, as a remand prisoner till 08.08.2012. His remand has been extended upto 12.11.2012. In this case, he obtained bail order in the Hon'ble High Court Chennai, in Criminal Original Petition No.23557/2012 dated 16.10.2012. The Inspector of Police, Royakottai circle, formally arrested him on 29.09.2012 at Central Prison, Salem, in Uthanappalli PS Cr.No.34/2012. His remand has been extended upto 01.11.2012. If he comes out on bail in the above said cases, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order......." A reading of the above said specific statements made by the Detaining Authority makes it crystal clear that though it is stated by the Detaining Authority that the detenus, viz., Srinivasan, Srinivasan @ Seeni and Murali @ Muralikumar have been granted bail by this Court in Crl.OP.Nos.25305 and 23557/2012 dated 16.10.2012 respectively, but they have been formally arrested in Cr.No.34/2012 on the file of the Uthanappalli Police Station and their remand period has been extended till 01.11.2012 and by stating so, the Detaining Authority has held, without any materials available on record to the effect that the detenus have preferred any bail petitions in respect of Cr.No.34/2012, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction to the effect that if the detenus come out on bail, they would indulge in further activities which would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. [e] A thorough reading of the above said statements made by the Detaining Authority makes it crystal clear that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned Detention Orders by arriving at the subjective satisfaction in the following categories, viz., [a] Bail applications filed in the ground case but the same were dismissed and in one case, further bail application filed before this Court is pending; [b] Bail applications not filed in the ground case so far; and [c] Bail granted to the detenus by the High Court but they were shown formal arrest in Cr.No.34/2012 and their remand period was also extended. In respect of the first category, the Detaining Authority has not stated whether the detenus have filed any subsequent bail applications pursuant to the dismissal of their bail applications in respect of the ground case. In one of the petitions, viz., in HCP.No.2276/2012, though it is stated that though the bail application was dismissed by the Sessions Court, the detenu has filed a petition before this Court and the same is pending in Crl.OP.No.20849/2012, the Detaining Authority has not whispered a word about the filing of any bail applications by the detenu in respect of ten adverse cases, in which the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In respect of the second category, the Detaining Authority has specifically stated that the detenus have not filed any bail petitions in the ground case as on the date of passing of the Detention Orders and in the third category, the Detaining Authority has stated in the grounds that though the detenus were granted bail by this Court, they were shown formal arrest in Cr.No.34/2012 and they are in the judicial custody as on the date of passing of the Detention Orders and he has also not stated whether the detenus have filed any bail applications in respect of Cr.No.34/2012. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that the Detaining Authority, in the absence of any cogent materials available on record, has arrived at the subjective satisfaction in total non-application of mind and in a most mechanical fashion to the effect that there is a likelihood of the detenus coming out on bail and on such an event, they would indulge in such further activities which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and as such, the impugned Detention Orders are vitiated and they are liable to be quashed. [f] At this juncture, is relevant to refer the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in T.V.Saravanan alias S.A.R.Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi v. State, through Secretary and Another reported in 2006 (1) MLJ (Crl) 539. The Hon'ble Apex court in the said decision held as hereunder: The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The imminent possibility of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention." It is also relevant to refer to the latest decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in in Huidrom Konungjao Singh Vs. State of Manipur reported in (2012) 3 MLJ (Crl) 794 (SC) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court followed its earlier landmark decision in REKHA Vs. STATE OF TAMIL NADU THROUGH SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER reported in (2011) 5 SCC 244.Tthe Hon'ble Apex Court has held as here under:- ........In our opinion, there is a real possibility of release of a person on bail who is already in custody provided he has moved a bail application which is pending. It follows logically that if no bail application is pending, then there is no likelihood of the person in custody being released on bail, and hence the detention order will be illegal. However, there can be an exception to this rule, that is, where a co-accused whose case stands on the same footing had been granted bail. In such cases, the detaining authority can reasonably conclude that there is likelihood of the detenu being released on bail even though no bail application of his is pending, since most courts normally grant bail on this ground. 14........Thus, as the detenu in the instant case has not moved the bail application and no other co- accused, if any, had been enlarged on bail, resorting to the provisions of Act was not permissible. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is based on mere ipse dixit statement in the grounds of detention and cannot be sustained in the eyes of law." [emphasis supplied] The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are also applicable to the facts of the instant cases in view of the reasons assigned earlier and as such, the Detention Orders are vitiated and accordingly, we are constrained to answer the second issue also in favour of the detenus. III. WHETHER THE IMPUGNED DETENTION ORDERS PASSED BY THE DETAINING AUTHORITY IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE RIGHTS GUARANTEED UNDER ARTICLE 2 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA:- [a] This Court is also constrained to point out that in all these matters, the Detaining Authority has passed 17 Detention Orders in total non-application of mind and in a most mechanical fashion and in a most hurried manner without looking into the entire materials available on record and in the absence of cogent materials available on record. We have also pointed out that on 04.09.2013, i.e., on a single day, the Detaining Authority has passed four Detention Orders, out of which, in respect of two Detention orders, no bail applications have been filed by the detenus and in respect of the other two Detention Orders, bail applications were dismissed on 03.09.2012. At the risk of repetition, it is to be stated that in respect of HCP.No.2191/2012, in stead of mentioning the name of the detenu as Laghumaiah, it has been mentioned as "Varadharajan" and "Periyasamy" in three places in the English and Tamil versions of the Grounds of Detention. The said factor reflects the confused mind of the Detaining Authority and the same also demonstrates that the Detaining Authority could not have perused the entire materials in respect of each and every detenus carefully by applying its mind to each and every material factor. It is to be stated that it is a clear case where the rights of the detenus guaranteed under Article 21 and 22[5] of the Constitution of India have been infringed. It is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in a catena of decisions that the extraordinary power of passing the Detention Orders should be resorted to exceptional cases and power vested on the authorities to pass Detention Orders should be justifiable and the same shall not infringe the life and personal liberty of a person guaranteed under Article 21 and 22[5] of the Constitution of India. [b] It is relevant to refer the landmark decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Binod Singh v. District Magistrate ((1986) 4 SCC

416) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- 7. It is well settled in our constitutional framework that the power of directing preventive detention given to the appropriate authorities must be exercised in exceptional cases as contemplated by the various provisions of the different statutes dealing with preventive detention and should be used with great deal of circumspection. There must be awareness of the facts necessitating preventive custody of a person for social defence." [emphasis supplied] [c] It is also relevant to refer the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court: [i] In the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in M. Nagaraj v. Union of India ((2006) 8 SCC

212) this Court observed: (SCC p. 241, para

20) 20. It is a fallacy to regard fundamental rights as a gift from the State to its citizens. Individuals possess basic human rights independently of any Constitution by reason of the basic fact that they are members of the human race. In the nine-Judge Constitution Bench decision of this Court in I.R. Coelho v. State of T.N.((2007)2 SCC 1), this Court observed: (SCC pp. 101 & 80, paras 109 &

49) 109. It is necessary to always bear in mind that fundamental rights have been considered to be [the] heart and soul of the Constitution.

49. Fundamental rights occupy a unique place in the lives of civilised societies and have been described in judgments as transcendental, inalienable and primordial.

21. It is all very well to say that preventive detention is preventive not punitive. The truth of the matter, though, is that in substance a detention order of one year (or any other period) is a punishment of one year's imprisonment. What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive? 36. It has been held that the history of liberty is the history of procedural safeguards. (See Kamleshkumar Ishwardas Patel v. Union of India ((1995) 4 SCC

51) vide para 49.) These procedural safeguards are required to be zealously watched and enforced by the court and their rigour cannot be allowed to be diluted on the basis of the nature of the alleged activities of the detenu. As observed in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab ((1981)4 SCC 481): (SCC p. 483, para

4) 4. May be that the detenu is a smuggler whose tribe (and how their numbers increase!) deserves no sympathy since its activities have paralysed the Indian economy. But the laws of preventive detention afford only a modicum of safeguards to persons detained under them, and if freedom and liberty are to have any meaning in our democratic set up, it is essential that at least those safeguards are not denied to the detenus.

39. Personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. The stringency and concern of judicial vigilance that is needed was aptly described in the following words in Thomas Pelham Dale case ((1881) 6 QBD 37.(CA): (QBD p.

461) Then comes the question upon the habeas corpus. It is a general rule, which has always been acted upon by the courts of England, that if any person procures the imprisonment of another he must take care to do so by steps, all of which are entirely regular, and that if he fails to follow every step in the process with extreme regularity the court will not allow the imprisonment to continue. (Emphasis Supplied) [ii] In Khudiram Das V. State of W.B. reported in (1975) 2 SCC 81.the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as follows : "13. .... It is, therefore, not only the right of the Court, but also its duty as well, to examine what are the basic facts and materials which actually and in fact weighed with the detaining authority in reaching the requisite satisfaction. The judicial scrutiny cannot be foreclosed by a mere statement of the detaining authority that it has taken into account only certain basic facts and materials and though other basic facts and materials were before it, it has not allowed them to influence its satisfaction. The Court is entitled to examine the correctness of this statement and determine for itself whether there were any other basic facts or materials, apart from those admitted by it, which could have reasonably influenced the decision of the detaining authority and for that purpose, the Court can certainly require the detaining authority to produce and make available to the Court the entire record of the case which was before it. That is the least the Court can do to ensure observance of the requirements of law by the detaining authority." (emphasis supplied) [iii] The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashadevi V. K.Shivraj, reported in 1979 (1) SCC 22.has held thus, "6. It is well-settled that the subjective satisfaction requisite on the part of the detaining authority, the formation of which is a condition precedent to the passing of the detention order will get vitiated if material or vital facts which would have a bearing on the issue and would influence the mind of the detaining authority one way or the other are ignored or not considered by the detaining authority before issuing the detention order. [emphasis supplied by us] The principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the decisions cited supra are also applicable to the facts of the instant cases also in view of the reasons assigned earlier. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that even the 3rd issue is also answered in favour of the detenus.

13. In view of the aforesaid reasons, we have come to the irresistible conclusion to the effect that the impugned Detention Orders are vitiated and the same are liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned Detention Orders passed by the Detaining Authority, viz., the District Collector and District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri in SC.Nos.40/2012, 38/2012, 39/2012 and 37/2012 in HCP.Nos.2191, 2199, 2232 and 2328/2012 dated 04.09.2012; SC.Nos.41/2012, 44/2012, 45/2012, 43/2012 and 42/2012 in HCP.Nos.2327, 2329, 2330, 2332, 2333/2012 dated 15.09.2012; SC.No.46/2012 in HCP.No.2276/2012 dated 24.09.2012; SC.Nos.49/2012, 51/2012, 48/2012 and 50/2012 in HCP.Nos.2429, 2489, 2490, 2492/2012 dated 15.10.2012 and SC.Nos.53/2012, 52/2012 and 54/2012 in HCP.Nos.2509, 2510 & 2511/2012 dated 30.10.2012 are hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petitions are allowed.

14. The detenus viz.,[1]LAGHUMAIAH, S/o.Muniyappan [2]VARADHARAJAN, S/o.Thimmaya @ Thimme Gowdu [3]S.PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/o.Sambangi Rama Reddy [4]PERIYASAMY, S/o.Mallappa [5]KESAVAN @ KESAVAMOORTHY, S/o.Thimmarayan, [6]VELU, S/o.Seenivasan [7]KALIL, S/o.Majid Sahib [8]PAPPANNA, S/o.Sithappa [9]RAJA @ RAJAPPA @ SIDARAJ, S/o.Sithappa [10]RAMACHANDRAN, S/o.Thimmaya @ Thimme Gowdu [11]M.S.K.MOORTHY @ SRIKANDAMOORTHY, S/o.Marappan [12]RAMAN @ LAKSHMANAN @ KULLAKARUPPAN @ PATTASU, S/o.Chinnaraj [13]MURALI @ MURALIKUMAR, S/o.Chinnappa [14]VEERAMANI, S/o.Ranganathan [15]SRINIVASAN, S/o.Jayaraman [16]SRINIVASAN @ SEENI, S/o.Kullappa and [17]S.K.MURALI, S/o.Sri Ramulu, are directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless their presence is required in connection with any other case. ap To 1. The Secretary to Government State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St. George, Chenna”

009.

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

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.

4. The Public Prosecutor High Court Madras