Geetha vs State

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 M.H.S.Confdl.No. 42/2014, dated 05.07.2014 by the detaining authority who has been arrayed as first respondent herein against the detenu by name Kuttyraj alias Paramasivam and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.

The Inspector of Police, Thiruvengadam Police Station as sponsoring authority has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is stated that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case:

Crime No. 58 of 2014 on the file of Sankarankovil Taluk Police Station registered under Sections 147, 294(b), 323 and 506(i) of the Indian Penal Code.

Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 01.06.2014, at about 19.15 hours, the victims namely Kaliraj, Venugopal and Murugan while on their way to Coimbatore, the detenu and others have deterred them and attacked them indiscriminately and thereby caused death of the said persons and after occurrence one Rajesh as de facto complainant has given the complaint and the same has been registered in Crime No. 168 of 2014 on the file of Thiruvengadam Police Station under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 @ 120(b), 147, 148, 341 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.

The detaining authority viz., the first 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 in the habit of committing serious crimes one after another and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 against him 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 wife of the detenu as petitioner.

On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it is stated 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 in ground case the detenu himself has voluntarily surrendered on 05.06.2014 before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai and he has been remanded to custody till 10.06.2014 and no copy of remand order has been given to the detenu and further on the side of the detenu two representations have been given and with regard to second representation the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore 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 passed the detention order against the detenu and further the representations given on the side of the detenu have been duly considered without delay and therefore the detention order in question is not liable to be quashed.

It is seen from the records that the detenu has been shown as one of the accused in ground case registered in Crime No. 168 of 2014 on 01.06.2014. Further it is seen from the records that in connection with ground case, the detenu himself has voluntarily surrendered before the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Shenkottai on 05.06.2014 and remanded to custody till 10.06.2014. As rightly pointed out on the side of the petitioner, no copy of remand order has been given to the detenu.

On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been filed wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to disposal of second representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, seven clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents. Under the said circumstances the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India are affected and that itself is a sole cause for quashing the detention order.

In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 05.07.2014 passed in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 42/2014 by the first respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Kuttyraj alias Paramasivam, Son of Raj Konar alias Sankaranarayanan Konar at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.