S. Ravikumar vs The State of Tamil Nadu

R. Regupathi, J.—The petitioner is the brother of the detenu by name Suresh @ Suresh Kumar. He challenges the order of preventive detention, dated 11.06.2008, clamped on his brother by the 2nd respondent branding him as a "Goonda" and detaining him u/s 3 of 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 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

Learned Counsel for the petitioner mainly attacks the impugned order of detention on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while considering the possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and indulging again in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. According to the learned Counsel, the detaining authority, for arriving at the subjective satisfaction and to clamp the order of detention on the detenu, had relied upon three adverse cases, apart from the ground case and, in paragraph No. 5 of the grounds of detention, stated as follows:

I am aware that Suresh alias Sureshkumar is in remand in Gandhi Market P.S.Cr. No. 239/08, Tiruppur South P.S.Cr.No.83/08 and Chengalpattu Taluk PS Cr. No. 635/07 and has not filed any bail application. Since he is in remand in the ground case from 07.03.2008, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail applications in the above cases using the provision relating to bail u/s 167(2) proviso of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

By drawing our attention to the above excerpts from the grounds of detention, the learned Counsel contended that though the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu is in remand in the ground case from 07.03.2008 and connected papers such as remand order, etc. have been furnished to the detenu in respect of ground case, he was not sure about the remand of the detenu in the adverse cases, as is evident from the above extracted portion of the grounds of detention. Learned Counsel would further contend that the remand orders in respect of three adverse cases were neither made available before the detaining authority nor copies thereof were furnished to the detenu and non-furnishing of such documents has caused great prejudice to the detenu and on this ground, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, after verifying the file, fairly admitted that the remand particulars regarding the adverse cases are not available in the booklet and they were not furnished to the detenu.

We heard the submissions of the Counsel on either side and perused the materials on record.

In the grounds of detention, though the detaining authority has stated that the detenu was in remand in all the three adverse cases as well as in the ground case and has not filed any bail application in the above cases, he has not mentioned the remand and remand extension particulars in respect of those three adverse cases, except stating that the detenu was in remand in the ground case from 07.03.2008. A perusal of the booklet furnished, as fairly conceded by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, would show that no materials about the remand and remand extension particulars in respect of the adverse cases were made available before the detaining authority and they were not furnished to the detenu. It appears that the detaining authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction mechanically, without application of mind as to the remand of the detenu in the adverse cases. Therefore, we are of the view, on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention in CPO/TC/IS/DO No. 289/2008, dated 11.06.2008, passed by the 2nd respondent, is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.