Podhumani vs State of Tamil Nadu

M. Chockalingam, J.—Challenge is made to the order of the 2nd respondent, dated 02.03.2010, whereby one R. Panaimarathan @ Rajaram, husband of the petitioner, was ordered to be detained under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, terming him as a "Goonda".

The affidavit and the materials filed in support of the petition, in particular the order under challenge, are looked into. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that the alleged detenu was to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, as he was involved in five adverse cases, as detailed below,

Sl. No. Police Station & Crime Number Provisions of law

Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 34/2010 Under Sections 148, 387, 427, 506(ii) IPC

Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 42/2010 u/s 354 IPC and Section 4 of Women Harassment Act

Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 43/2010 u/s 379 IPC

Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 46/2010 u/s 379 IPC

Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 47/2010 u/s 380 IPC and also in the ground case in Crime No. 53/2010, registered u/s 397 IPC on the file of Krishnankovil Police Station for a crime that had taken place on 23.02.2010, in which he was arrested on the next day and remanded to judicial custody, on scrutiny of the materials placed before him, the detaining authority, the 2nd respondent herein, after recording his subjective satisfaction that the activities of the alleged detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, branded him as a "Goonda" and ordered him to be detained under Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before the Court.

At the time of advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, the learned Counsel raised two grounds. Firstly, it is contended that the detenu has not moved any bail application in the ground cases as well as in the 3rd, 4th and 5th adverse cases but, the detaining authority in paragraph No. 6 of the grounds of detention has recorded his satisfaction that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and further the detaining authority has not recorded any satisfaction in respect of 5th adverse cases and therefore, according to the learned Counsel, the subjective satisfaction so arrived by the detaining authority was not based on any material and on this ground the detention order is liable to be quashed. Secondly, it is submitted by the learned Counsel that as per Section 10 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, all the materials relating to the order of detention must be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the order and in this case, there is no cogent material placed to show when the materials were placed before the Advisory Board and further the counter filed by the respondent is silent about the same.

The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State on the above contentions put-forward by the counsel for the petitioner.

After looking into the materials available on record and considering the submissions made on either side, the Court has to necessarily agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the impugned order of detention has got to be set aside on the grounds urged by him.

It is not in controversy that the detenu was ordered to be detained under Act 14/1982 on the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority that he was involved in five adverse cases and in one ground case referred to above. It is true that six cases were registered against the detenu, namely five adverse cases and one ground case. A reading of paragraph 6 of the grounds of detention reads as follows:

I am aware that Thiru. R. Panaimarathan @ Rajaram has been remanded to judicial custody upto 10.03.2010 in Central Prison, Madurai in connection with Krishnankovil Police Station Cr. No. 53/2010. In adverse cases in Cr. No. 34/10 and Cr. No. 42/10 of Krishnankovil Police Station against him, he obtained bail in the concerned court. After coming out on bail, he committed crimes in two adverse cases and in the ground case. Hence, there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in the ground, by filing bail application before the concerned court or higher court by Thiru.R. Panaimarathan @ Rajaram....

A reading of the above would clearly indicate that the detenu did not move any bail application in the ground case as well as in the 3rd, 4th and 5th adverse cases and he was in judicial custody. However, the detaining authority has stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing applications. The observation made by the detaining authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail was without any basis at all. Law requires that to record such a satisfaction, there must be not only material but cogent material available. In the instant case, there was no material, much less cogent material, available for the detaining authority to record such a satisfaction when no bail applications are pending before any court of criminal law. Under such circumstances, the order impugned in the present petition has got to be set aside.

Further, it is specifically averred in the petition as well as urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the materials, including the order of detention, should be placed before the Advisory Board within three weeks from the date of passing of the order and though a specific averment is made, there is no proper reply from the respondents. In the counter filed, it is only stated that all the materials were placed before the Advisory Board in time and it is not stated on what the materials were placed before the Advisory Board. In the absence of specific answer as required, the contention raised by the petitioner has got to the accepted....

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in No. Cr.M.P. No. 11/2010, dated 02.03.2010, passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu R. Panaimarathan @ Rajaram, S/o. Ramaiah, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his presence, in accordance with law, is required in connection with any other case.