AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
[Order of the Court was made by A.D.JAGADISH CHANDIRA, J.]
The petitioner is the sister of the detenu viz., Saravanan, son of Paramasamy, aged about 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order No.36/2026 (ROC.No.4399155/2026/C2), dated 23.03.2026, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this habeas corpus petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the ground case in which the petitioner was arrested is a case registered for the offence under Section 103 of B.N.S.S., which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The petitioner moved an application for bail in Cr.M.P.No.455 of 2026, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and it was dismissed on 09.03.2026. Thereafter, the detenu has not moved any bail application before the Sessions Court. While so, the Detaining Authority relying on a case in Crime No.447 of 2023, on the file of the Dindigul Town North Police Station, bail was granted to the accused therein, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, vide order dated 13.12.2023 in Cr.M.P.No.4472 of 2023, to infer that there is a real possibility of the detenu in coming out on bail. Since in the similar case, investigation was over and charge sheet was filed and therefore, bail was granted and hence, the said case cannot be taken as a similar case.
Learned counsel for the Government of Tamil Nadu (Criminal Side) appearing for the respondents submitted that it is the usual practice in Madurai and its surrounding Districts that even in cases, which are exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, it is the prevalent practice that the accused has to move application for bail before the Judicial Magistrate's Court and only after dismissal of the bail application by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the accused has to approach the Sessions Court for bail. Therefore, on that ground the impugned detention order need not be set aside.
On perusal of the materials available on record, it is seen that the ground case in which the petitioner was arrested is a case registered for the offence under Section 103 of B.N.S.S., which is exclusively triable by a Court of Session. The petitioner moved an application for bail in Cr.M.P.No. 455 of 2026, before the learned Judicial Magistrate, Nilakottai and it was dismissed on 09.03.2026. Thereafter, the detenu has not moved any bail application before the Sessions Court. While so, the Detaining Authority relying on a case in Crime No.447 of 2023, on the file of the Dindigul Town North Police Station, bail was granted to the accused therein, by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Dindigul, vide order dated 13.12.2023 in Cr.M.P.No. 4472 of 2023, to infer that there is a real possibility of the detenu in coming out on bail. Hence, the case relied upon by the Detaining Authority is not similar to the case of the detenu herein and therefore, on the said ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention No.36/2026 (ROC.No.4399155/2026/C2), dated 23.03.2026, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Saravanan, son of Paramasamy, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.