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 No. 83/BCDFGISSSV/2014, dated 28.11.2014 by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as second respondent herein against the detenu by name Jothimurugan @ Murugesan, Son of Soundarapandi and quash the same and thereby set him at liberty forthwith.
The Inspector of Police, B6 Jaihindpuram 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. 668 of 2014, B6 Jaihindpuram Police Station registered under Sections 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code @ Sections 324, 506(ii) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code".
Further it is stated in the affidavit that one Irulayee as complainant has given a complaint in B6 Jaihindpuram Police Station against the detenu and others and the same has been registered in Crime No. 762 of 2014 under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and subsequently altered into Sections 147, 148, 120(b), 302 and 109 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 considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately 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 detenu himself 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/detenu has contended that on the side of the petitioner/detenu three representations are submitted and the same have not been disposed of without delay and further in paragraph No. 5 of the detention order, the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Crime No. 568 of 2012, D2 Sellur Police Station, registered under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and in fact the facts mentioned in the case registered in Crime No. 568 of 2012 are not similar to the facts of the case registered in Crime No. 762 of 2014 and under the said circumstances the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly before passing the impugned detention order and under the said circumstances the same is liable to be quashed.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has also vehemently contended that even though there is some delay in disposing of the representations submitted on the side of the petitioner/detenu, the detaining authority has rightly observed that the bail order passed in Crime No. 568 of 2012, D2 Sellur Police Station, registered under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code can be a basis for granting bail in Crime No. 762 of 2014 and therefore the detention order in question does not call for any interference.
On the side of the respondents, a pro forma has been submitted wherein it has been clearly stated that with regard to first representation in between Column Nos. 7 to 9, five clear working days are available and in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, two clear working days are available and likewise with regard to second representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, three clear working days are available and with regard to third representation in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, four clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such delay.
Even assuming without conceding that the delay pointed out earlier is not much, the Court has to analyse the other point raised on the side of the petitioner/detenu.
It is seen from the detention order that the detaining authority has relied upon the bail order passed in Crime No. 568 of 2012, D2 Sellur Police Station, registered under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
It is also equally true that in the ground case, the petitioner/detenu has filed the bail application and the same has been pending at the time of passing the detention order. Further in Crime No. 568 of 2012, D2 Sellur Police Station, registered under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, investigation has been completed and a final report has also been filed and under the said circumstances bail has been granted to the concerned accused. Further it is an admitted fact that in the occurrence relating to Crime No. 762 of 2014, three persons are murdered whereas in the occurrence relating to Crime No. 568 of 2012, only one person has been murdered. Under the said circumstances, it is totally unwarranted to say that Crime No. 568 of 2012 as well as Crime No. 762 of 2014 are similar in nature and further on the basis of stage of investigation in Crime No. 568 of 2012, bail has been granted to the concerned accused, but in Crime No. 762 of 2014, investigation is in initial stage at the time of passing the detention order. Therefore, it is quite clear that the detaining authority has not applied his mind properly in relying upon the similar case particulars. Under the said circumstances and also for the reasons stated supra, this Court is of the considered view that the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed in No. 83/ BCDFGISSSV/2014, dated 28.11.2014 by the second respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the petitioner/detenu viz., Jothimurugan @ Murugesan, Son of Soundarapandi at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with any other case.