AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu - Archunan, son of Sudalaiyandi Thevar, aged about 29 years. The detenu has been detained by the
second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No. 97/2016, dated 03.08.2016, holding him to be a ""Goonda"", as contemplated under Section
2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
Though a number of grounds have been raised assailing the order of detention, at the time of making submission, the learned counsel for the
petitioner submitted that the Detaining Authority, while arriving at the subjective satisfaction that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail,
has relied upon the bail granted in a similar case registered in Crime No.6 of 2016, on the file of Thatchanallur Police Station, for offences under
Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 307 and 506(ii) IPC. Though the Detaining Authority has relied upon the bail granted in the said case, he has not
furnished a copy of the bail application filed in the said case. Therefore, non-furnishing of the document relied on would vitiate the order of
detention.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon number of judgments delivered by the Division Benches of this Court,
one such case relied upon by the petitioner is H.C.P.No. 2433 of 2015 in the case of Shanmugavel vs. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein, this Court,
by relying upon the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in M.Ahamed Kutty vs. Union of India and another [1990(2) SCC 1], has
quashed the detention order. The relevant portion from the said judgment reads as follows:
Considering the facts in the instant case, the bail application and the bail order were vital materials for consideration. If those were not
considered the satisfaction of the detaining authority itself would have been impaired and if those had been considered, they would be documents
relied on by the detaining authority though not specifically mentioned in the annexure to the order of detention and those ought to have formed part
of the documents supplied to the detenu with the grounds of detention and without them the grounds themselves could not be said to have been
complete. We have, therefore, no alternative but to hold that it amounted to denial of the detenu''s right to make an effective representation and
that it resulted in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India rendering the continued detention of the detenu illegal and entitling the detenu
to be set at liberty in this case."" (Emphasis added).
The said judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand also. Therefore, following the dictum laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court,
we hold that the impugned detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside.
In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in
M.H.S.Confdl.No.97/2016, dated 03.08.2016, is quashed. The detenu, namely Archunan, son of Sudalaiyandi Thevar, aged about 29 years, is
ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if he is not required for detention in connection with any other case.