Devi vs The State

M. Chockalingam, J.—This petition is brought forth by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent No. C2/6529/2010 dated 21.2.2010, whereby the detenu Anbumayan was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982.

The Court heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in six adverse cases viz. (i) Thirunavalur Police Station Crime No. 317 of 2008 for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Thirunavalur Police Station Crime No. 139 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 342 and 393 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii)Thirunavalur Police Station Crime No. 202 of 2009 for the offence u/s 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Ulundurpet Police Station Crime No. 323 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 457, 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Elavanasukottai Police Station Crime No. 136 of 2009 for the offence u/s 380 of the Indian Penal Code and (vi) Thiruvennainallur Police Station Crime No. 389 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 454, 380 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 484 of 2009 registered by Ulunturpet Police station for the offence u/s 397 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 24.09.2009 and the detenu was arrested on 25.9.2009 and remanded to judicial custody on 26.9.2009, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court.

Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel would submit that the detenu has moved bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 111 of 2010 and the same is pending, but the Authority has stated that it is most likely the detenu may come out on bail. The said observation is without any material much less cogent material, which would vitiate the detention order.

Learned Counsel added further that copy of the bail application pending before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 111 of 2010 was actually not served upon the detenu. It was a relied on document, which should have been served on the detenu, but not done so. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.

This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.

As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to six adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

It is an admitted position that the detenu has filed bail application before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 111 of 2010 and the same is pending, but the Authority has stated in the detention order which reads as follows:

I am aware that Thiru. Anbumayan, son of Annadurai is now in remand at Central Prison, Cuddalore in connection with the case in Cr. No. 202/2009 of Thirunavalur Police Station. Thiru. Anbumayan, son of Annadurai has moved bail applications in Cr.P. No. 2022009 in Ulundurpet Judicial Magistrate No. I court in C.M.P. No. 5538/2009, 11480/2009 and 11675/2009 and same were dismissed on 01.12.2009, 11.12.2009 and 21.12.2009 respectively. He has moved bail application before the High Court, Chennai in Crl.O.P. No. 111/2010 and the same is yet to be disposed of. I am also aware that it is most likely he may come out on bail by filing a bail application for the above case in the same or higher court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future, in activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Peace and 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 Peace and Public Order. On the materials placed before me, I am satisfied that the said Thiru. Anbumayan, son of Annadurai is a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of Public Peace and public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.

From the above, it is quite clear that when the bail application is pending before the High Court, the Detaining Authority has observed that it is most likely the detenu may come out on bail. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require.

Apart from this, copy of the bail application pending before this Court in Crl.O.P. No. 111 of 2010 was actually not served upon the detenu. It was a relied on document, which should have been served on the detenu, but not done so, which would vitiate the detention order. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside.

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No. C2/6529/2010 dated 21.2.2010. The detenu, namely, Anbumayan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case.