AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Selvam, J.
This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to detention order passed in C.No.29/Detention/C.P.O/T.C./2014 dated 03.09.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Manivannan, Son of Ayyasamy and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(i) Crime No. 201 of 2013, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City registered under Sections 147, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
(ii) Crime No. 927 of 2013, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City registered under Sections 387 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 16.07.2014, one Rajaram has given a complaint to the Sub Inspector of Police, Gandhi Market Police Station, Tiruchirappalli City against the detenu and the same has been registered in Crime No. 796 of 2014 under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
The detaining authority viz., second respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and thereby branded him as ''Goonda'' by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as petitioner.
On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended inter alia to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the same.
The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the detaining authority has relied upon similar case particulars in erroneous manner and therefore the subjective satisfaction derived by the detaining authority is not correct and under the said circumstances the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the detaining authority after perusing the relevant records has rightly derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately passed the detention order in question and the same does not require any interference.
In paragraph No. 5 of the detention order, it is stated like thus:
"I am aware that Manivannan is in remand in Gandhi Market PS Cr.No.796/2014. He has filed a bail application for Gandhi Market PS Cr.No.796/14 in Cr.M.P. No. 1600/2014 before the Principal and District Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli and the same is pending. In a similar case registered in Gandhi Market PS Cr.No. 405/2014, u/2 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC bail was granted to the accused Vaithan alias Suthakar, who was remanded on 16.4.2014 by the Vacation Sessions Judge, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P. No.598/2014, dated 14.05.2014. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has specifically pointed out that similar case particulars relied upon by the detaining authority is totally incorrect.
As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, in paragraph No. 5 of the detention order, it has been specifically mentioned to the effect that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Cr.M.P. No.598 of 2014 in connection with Crime No. 405 of 2014 registered under Sections 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. It is a settled principle of law that each bail application has to be decided on its own merit. But the detaining authority has simply relied upon the bail order passed in Cr.M.P. No.598 of 2014, even though similar Sections of law are involved. Therefore it goes without saying that the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly for deriving subjective satisfaction and that itself would be sufficient for quashing the detention order in question.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in C.No.29/Detention/C.P.O/T.C./2014, dated 03.09.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Manivannan, Son of Ayyasamy at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.