AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner, who is the detenu, has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the second respondent passed in C. No. 41/G/IS/2012 dated 10.12.2012. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-
The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu on 29.11.2012, by the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, B-15 Rathinapuri Police Station, Coimbatore City, in Crime No. 638 of 2012 for offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(h) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.
Though several grounds have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority in arriving at the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying on a similar case in which the accused therein was granted bail on 21.03.2007, is erroneous. Therefore, the order under challenge is vitiated.
We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions and perused the materials on record as well as the impugned order of detention.
On a perusal of the grounds of detention, we find that the detaining authority by inferring that since in a similar case, one accused viz., Ranjith Kumar, was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl. M.P. No. 754 of 2007 on 21.03.2007 in respect of Crime No. 178 of 2007 and the father of the detenu is taking steps to take the detenu on bail, there is a real possibility of the detenu being released on bail, has passed the impugned detention order. As in the similar case bail was granted way back in the year 2007, it is not appropriate to rely on the said order in connection with the present case. Thus, there is no livelink between these two cases. The detaining authority has to arrive at subjective satisfaction only taking into account the present prevailing situation. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority reflects total non-application of mind. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, M. Venugopal, S/o. Murugesh made in C. No. 41/G/IS/2012 dated 10.12.2012, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. The present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal pending cases.