P. Mariappan vs The District Collector

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 dated 13.06.2014 passed in M.H.S.Confdl No. 36/2014 by the detaining authority who has been arrayed as first respondent against the detenu by name Rajadurai and quash the same and set him at liberty forthwith.

The Inspector of Police, Manur 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 cases:

(i) Crime No. 383 of 2013 on the file of Manur Police Station registered under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b), 307, 506(ii) and 109 of the Indian Penal Code.

(ii) Crime No. 506 of 2014 on the file of Appanthiruppathi Police Station registered under Sections 341, 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148, 341, 120(b), 109, 307 and 302 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code.

Further it is stated in the affidavit that on 09.05.2014, the detenu by name Rajadurai and his henchmen have entered into Sethurayanpudur Library with the help of an Omni van and tried to attack one Ponnusamy and due to their overt acts he passed away and subsequently a complaint has been lodged and the same has been registered in Crime No. 192 of 2014 on the file of Manur Police Station under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148, 302 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.

The detaining authority viz., the first respondent herein after perusing the averments made in the affidavit coupled with the other documents has derived subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately invoked Act 14 of 1982 and thereby branded him as ''Goonda'' by way of passing the detention order in question and in order to quash the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the father of the detenu as petitioner.

On the side of the respondents a detailed counter has been filed, wherein it has been contended to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and ultimately prayed to dismiss the petition.

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has raised the following points so as to quash the detention order:

(a) In connection with Crime No. 506 of 2014, Appanthiruppathi Police Station, the detenu has made his surrender on 17.04.2014 and since then he is in duress and in the detention order it has been stated to the effect that on 09. 05.2014 the detenu and his henchmen have taken part in the occurrence which culminated registering a case in Crime No. 192 of 2014 and no possibility on the part of the detenu to take part in the alleged occurrence and the detaining authority viz., first respondent herein has failed to apply his mind.

(b) In the detention order it has been stated to the effect that the Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station has made a formal arrest on 25.04.2014 pertaining to Crime No. 192 of 2014 whereas in the detention order it has not been specifically stated as to when and in which case the detenu has made his surrender.

(c) On the side of the detenu a representation has been given and the same has not been disposed of without delay.

Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has contended that the detaining authority viz., first respondent herein after considering all the records placed before him and also after deriving subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender has rightly invoked Act 14 of 1982 against him by way of passing the impugned detention order and further the representation given on the side of the detenu has been duly considered and therefore the detention order in question does not require any interference.

It is an admitted fact that the occurrence in ground case has had happened on 09.05.2014. It is also an admitted fact that with regard to second adverse case the detenu has made his surrender on 17.04.2014 and since then he is in duress. As pointed out earlier the occurrence in ground case has had happened on 09.05.2014. In fact in the detention order it has been clearly mentioned that the detenu and his associates have come to the place of occurrence by using an Omni van. Since from 17.04.2014, the detenu is in duress, it is highly impossible on the part of the detenu to take part in the occurrence which has had happened on 09.05.2014. Further it is seen from the records that the detenu has involved in two adverse cases and also in one ground case. In the detention order it has been simply stated that on 24.05.2014, the Inspector of Police, Manur Police Station has made a formal arrest in connection with ground case in Crime No. 192 of 2014. Nowhere in the detention order it is stated as to when and also in which crime number, the detenu has made his surrender. Under the said circumstances, it is needless to say that the detaining authority viz., first respondent herein has not applied his mind properly before passing the impugned detention order.

On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been filed, wherein it has been stated that in between Column Nos. 12 and 13, four clear working days are available and further in between Column Nos. 7 and 9, three clear working days are available and no explanation has been given on the side of the respondents and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore viewing from any angle, the detention order in question is not factually and legally sustainable and the same deserves to be quashed.

In fine, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order dated 13.06.2014 passed in M.H.S.Confdl No. 36/2014 by the first respondent/detaining authority is quashed and consequently the respondents are directed to set the detenu viz., Rajadurai, Son of Mariappan at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in any other case.