Mohan vs The Secretary to the Government Prohibition and Excise Department and The Commissioner of Police

M. Karpagavinayagam,J.

The detenu himself is the petitioner. Challenging the Order dated 30.12.2004 branding him as a ''Goonda'', this habeas corpus petition has been

filed.

The non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the Order of detention is the main ground urged by the learned

counsel for the petitioner.

The book-let furnished by the detaining authority on the detenu would indicate that the petitioner/detenu was arrested on 16.12.2004 in respect

of Crime Nos. 1134 and 1147 of 2004 - Crime No. 1134 of 2004 would relate to the incident on 11.12.2004, which is the last adverse case; and

Crime No. 1147 of 2004 would relate to the incident on 16.12.2004. Thus, the records would indicate that the arrest has been shown by the

sponsoring authority in respect of both the crime numbers and the separate arrest cards have been prepared and request has been made before the

Magistrate concerned to remand the detenu in both the cases. The remand order has been passed by the Magistrate concerned on 17.12.2004.

The Sponsoring Authority has filed a report and has collected all the documents and placed the same before the Detaining Authority requesting

for the detention of the petitioner. The Detaining Authority was under the impression that the petitioner/detenu was arrested only in Crime No.

1147 of 2004 and the remand order was passed in the said crime number alone and subsequently the detenu was lodged in prison.

On perusal of the grounds of detention it is clear that the detaining authority would state that the Inspector of Police/sponsoring authority

arrested the detenu on 16.12.2004 in Crime No. 1147 of 2004 and the detenu was produced before the V Metropolitan Magistrate and thereafter

lodged in Chennai Central Prison as remand prisoner till date. It is also stated in paragraph 4 that the detenu, who is in remand in Crime No. 1147

of 2004, has not moved any bail application so far and he is also aware that there is imminent possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail

application for the above case since in similar cases bails are granted by the Sessions Court or Higher Courts concerned after a lapse of time. His

wordings would indicate that the detaining authority was under the impression that the petitioner was arrested only in Crime No. 1147 of 2004 as

ground case and he has been remanded in respect of the said crime number. Whereas, the records found in the booklet would indicate that the

petitioner was arrested in respect of both the crime numbers, namely 1134 and 1147 of 2004. Requisition has also been given by the sponsoring

authority before the Magistrate concerned for remanding the petitioner in respect of both the crime numbers. But the sponsoring authority has failed

to place another remand order in respect of Crime No. 1134 of 2004 before the detaining authority. The detaining authority on perusal of the

records should have asked for clarification from the sponsoring authority as to why the remand order has not been placed in respect of Crime No.

1134 of 2004. Admittedly, it has not been done. On the other hand, the detaining authority would assert in the grounds of detention that the

petitioner was arrested on 16.12.2004 only in respect of Crime No. 1147 of 2004 and he was remanded in the said crime number. This would

reflect the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated.

Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is set aside. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty

forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case.