M. Esakki vs The Secretary to the Government

V.S. Ravi, J.—The petitioner, is the brother of the detenu, and he has filed the present Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to set aside the order in M.H.S. Confdl. No. 20/2014 dated 21.04.2014, passed by the second respondent and to produce the detenu, Barathan, S/o. Muthupandi Thevar, (Male, aged 26 years), who is presently confined at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli, before this Court and set him at liberty.

Brief averments made in the petition and also the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are as follows;-

2.1 The petitioner''s brother has come to the adverse notice of the police in three cases and 1st and 3rd adverse cases are registered in Cr.Nos.147 and 341/2013 under Section 379 (Sand theft) IPC on the file of Suthamalli Police Station. 2nd adverse case is registered in Cr.No.854 of 2013 under Sections 147, 379 IPC r/w 4(1)(ii)(A) and read with 21(1)(v) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1959 and later, altered into one under Sections 147 and 379 IPC on the file of Tirnelveli City, Pettai Police Station. All the three adverse cases are pending trial, when the order of detention is passed. The ground case came to be registered in Cr.No.76/2014 under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC on the file of Suthamalli Police Station.

2.2 The detenu has done the agricultural work in and around Suthamalli. Due to enmity prevailed between the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station, the third respondent herein, and the detenu, the third respondent, has implicated the detenu in adverse cases, in which two cases have been registered at Suthamalli Police Station, Tirunelveli District and one case has been registered at Pettai Police Station, Tirunelveli City. Further, the third respondent arrested the detenu by showing the detenu as one of the perpetrator in the ground case registered in Cr.No.76 of 2014 for the offence under Sections 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC. When that being the case, the third respondent, by showing the above said 3 cases as adverse case and by projecting the case in Crime No. 76 of 2014 as ground case, has recommended for invocation of Act 14 of 1982, which, resulting in the issuance of the impugned order of detention.

2.3 The detention order is not legally valid and the same is liable to be quashed. Neither the Detaining Authority nor the Sponsoring Authority has chosen to intimate the place of detention and grounds of detention to any one of the close relatives of the detenu. When the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground case in Cr.No.76 of 2014, the Detaining Authority could not have come to a conclusion that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The way in which the Detaining Authority has averred that there is a possibility of filing a bail application makes it very clear that such conclusion is based on ipse dixit material. Since all those commission of crimes are said to have taken place based on a particular motive, the Detaining Authority cannot say that there would be a prejudicial thing in so far as the public peace and public tranquility is concerned.

2.4 Page numbers 229, 231, 237 and 239 etc., in the booklet are not in a readable condition and the bail order in Crl.O.P. (MD). No.8949 of 2012 which is in the page No. 315 of the booklet, particularly, in paragraph No5, has not been properly translated in Tamil. In result of all those defects, the detenu has got confused and thereby felt deprived of making an effective representation as against the impugned order of detention.

Per contra, the second respondent, in the counter affidavit and also, Mr. C. Ramesh learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents have submitted that the detention order against the detenu Barathan, has been passed based on three adverse cases and one ground case, details of which are as follows;-

Sl.No.

Police Station and Cr.No. Sections of Law

1.

SuthamalliPolic Station Cr.No.147/2013 379 IPC

2.

Tirunelveli City, Pettai Police Station, Cr.No.854/2013 147, 379 IPC read with 4(1)(ii)(A) and read with 21(1)(v) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1959, later, altered into one under Sections 147 and 379 IPC

3.

Suthamalli Police Station, Cr.No.341/2013 379 IPC

4.

Ground Case Suthamalli Police Station, Cr.No.76/2014 341, 294(b) and 302 IPC

3.1 The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would further submit that the detenu has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and in order to prevent the detenu from indulging in further act which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, he has been ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

3.2 Further, the police investigation disclosed the involvement of the detenu in the above mentioned offences.. Therefore, the detenu has been rightly implicated in the said crimes as an accused. The adverse cases and ground case have been registered only on proper complaint. The allegation levelled against the Sponsoring Police Officer is baseless and they are untenable.

3.3 The detenu has involved in three adverse cases and one ground case. These facts are sufficient to design him as a habitual criminal. Regarding the detention of the detenu at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, with effect from 22.04.2014, necessary intimation, has been sent to Thiru. Muthupandi, the father of the detenu and the intimation has been properly served by the Inspector of Police, Suthamalli Police Station on 22.04.2014. The Detaining Authority has inferred that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in Suthamalli Police Station, Crime No. 76/2014, since in the similar cases, bails are granted by the Courts. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. The Detaining Authority has rightly appreciated all relevant facts concerned to the grant of bail in para 6 of the grounds of the detention. Only legible copies of records have been furnished to the detenu especially copies of documents put up at pages 229, 231, 237 and 239 are readable and understandable. Further, while serving the booklet to the detenu, he has made an endorsement that the contents have been read over and explained to him. For the reasons stated above, the respondents have requested to dismiss the Habeas Corpus Petition.

Based upon the contentions of both sides, the following points arise for consideration:

Whether the impugned order of detention has been passed in accordance with the provisions of Act 14 of 1982?

Whether the order of preventive detention has been passed on proper and valid grounds?

In the grounds of detention itself it is clearly pointed out, that the detenu has been already charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC. On behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted, that there is non application of mind by the Detaining Authority and hence, the order passed by the Detaining Authority is pre-determined. However, the respondents in order to establish that the said cases are pending, more particularly for the grievous offence of murder, under Section 302 IPC and other cases, the materials records have been filed in booklet containing several pages from page 1 to 319. Further, the Detaining Authority has clearly stated in the detention order and grounds of detention that the above mentioned cases have been filed against the detenu based upon the relevant records and the detenu is a habitual offender in criminal activities and the petitioner is indulging in criminal activities which are detrimental to the maintenance of public order and therefore, the detention order has been passed to protect the lives of the human beings and properties. Further, in the grounds, the Detaining Authority has clearly stated that there is a real possibility of the accused coming out on bail. To substantiate the said possibility, the respondent also filed the relevant and material records. The term ''Goonda'' has been invoked against the accused in accordance with law and the averments made on behalf of the petitioner are far from truth. On a careful consideration of the materials on record, it is seen that there are sufficient force in the said contention of the respondents.

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that certain copies furnished by the respondents are not legible, on the perusal of the same, it could be seen that the copies are readable and also understandable. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the ground case is not at all connected in respect of similar in nature with the adverse cases. However, it is seen that the detenu is an, FIR named, accused in the ground case.

It is pertinent to note that in a decision of this Court reported in V. Jagadeeskumar Vs. The Government of Tamil Nadu, , this Court has held as follows:-

"Inference in preventive detention orders by the Courts in Habeas Corpus Petitions was considered by the Supreme Court in the decision reported in Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Others Vs. Smt. Alka Subhash Gadia and Another, . The grounds on which the Courts may interfere in the detention orders are held to be very limited, which read thus:-

(i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act under which it is purported to have been passed,

(ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person,

(iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose,

(iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, or

(v) that the authority which passed it had not authority to do so."

In the present cases also, it is found that the Detaining Authority has passed the Detention Order based upon the relevant and material records, and also for a valid purpose.

It is seen that the copies which form the ground for detention have been supplied and no prejudice has been caused to the detenu. Further, the detenu himself has made an acknowledgment that the detention order and grounds of detention have been supplied to him and therefore, it could not be treated as non-furnishing of a document or furnishing of a document the translation of which is needed. The duty of Court is to see that efficacy of safeguards provided in the law of preventive detention is not lost in mechanical, routine, dull casualness and chill indifference, on the part of the Authorities entrusted with their application. However, in the present case, it is found that the second respondent has passed the impugned order, in accordance with Law.

Further, the Court will not interfere if the detention order established that there are materials for the detaining authority to arrive at his subjective satisfaction for passing of detention order. Further, the material records have been supplied to detenu and available in the paper book and the petitioner cannot claim that the detenu has been prejudiced in any way. Detention can be based, provided the detaining authority has the relevant material before it, so as to come to a reasonable opinion that from the surrounding circumstances, coupled with the incident in question, a satisfaction as to the future illegal activities of the detenu, could be inferred. It is only those documents which are relied upon by the detaining authority are the relevant documents which have to be furnished to the detenu. The other documents which are merely ''referred to'' documents need not be supplied and the detenu has to prove the prejudice caused because of the non-supply of the ''referred to'' documents.

The present Detention Order is valid for maintenance of Public order. There are compelling reasons for preventive detention of the detenu. Hence, this Court''s interference is not called for. The Court can only examine whether the grounds disclosed are relevant to the object of the preventive detention Act. It cannot act as a Court of Appeal.

Further, in the counter affidavit, it has been clearly stated that the intimation letter of the detention of the detenu has been properly served to the father of the detenu, namely Muthupandi on 22.04.2014 by the Inspector of Police. Therefore, this contention has also to be rejected.

When the subjective satisfaction is well based on the case which either ended in conviction or which the accused in facing trial at the time of passing the orders, the said satisfaction arrived at by the authority cannot be termed as wrong. In such circumstances, the order of the Detaining Authority has to be upheld. There are no material inconsistency affecting validity of the impugned order. Detention order can be justified if a reasonable inference can be drawn from detenu''s past conduct, about likelihood of his repeating the prejudicial activity, in future.

For the above mentioned reasons, this Court is of the view that there is no infirmity in the order of detention passed against the detenu and no case is made out to interfere with the order of detention dated 21.04.2014.

In the result, the habeas corpus petition is dismissed.