AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Sathyanarayanan, J.—The Petitioner is the mother of the detenu, namely Accko Kumar @ Kumar, and the detenu has been detained under National Security Act, 1980 (Central Act No. 65/1980) vide Order dated 14.12.2010 passed by the Third Respondent. As per the grounds of detention dated 14.12.2010, the detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:
(i) Crime No. 171/2010 on the file of Kumbakonam East Police Station for the alleged commission of the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341 & 307, IPC. The case is under investigation.
(ii) Crime No. 791/2010 on the file of Kumbakonam East Police Station for the alleged commission of the offences u/s 399, IPC and Section 26(2) of the Arms Act, 1959. The case is under investigation.
It is further stated in paragraph 3 of the grounds of detention that the detenu was also involved in the commission of offences under Sections 392 & 506(ii), IPC r/w Section 4 of Explosive Substances Act, 1958, which took place on 26.10.2010 at about 09.00 hours, which led to the registration of the case in Crime No. 723 of 2010 by Kumbakonam East Police Station and the detenu and his associate Senthil were arrested on the same day at about 14.00 hours and produced before the Judicial Magistrate Court, Kumbakonam and they ware remanded to judicial custody and the remand has been periodically extended till 21.12.2010 and at present, the detenu has been confined at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
As the activities of the detenu created a sense of panic, and terror among the common public and also created a feeling of insecurity, which resulted in paralysing of public order and tranquility, the Detaining Authority thought fit to invoke the provisions of the National Security Act and clamped the order of detention. Challenging the vires of the Order, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has filed an additional Affidavit in M.P. No. 1 of 2011 to raise additional grounds and this Court after hearing the learned Additional Public Prosecutor, has allowed the same.
The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention and submitted that the detenu, apart from the ground case, was also arrested in connection with two adverse cases and the Bail Applications filed by him in those cases were dismissed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate as well as by the District Sessions Court at Thanjavur and that it has been further stated in paragraph-7 of the grounds of detention that the Detaining Authority was also aware that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing Bail Application for the above said case. It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Detaining Authority has also placed reliance upon bails being granted in similar cases and in respect of those similar cases, no material whatsoever has been furnished to the detenu and therefore, it caused prejudice to him and thereby preventing him from making an effective representation for the revocation of the detention order.
On the above said submission, the Court heard the submission of Mr. Maharaja, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for Respondents 2 to 4 also.
A perusal of paragraph 7 of the grounds of detention would disclose that the Detaining Authority has placed reliance upon the bail orders being granted for similar cases. A perusal of the booklet would disclose that the materials in respect of similar cases have not been furnished to the detenu and consequently, the detenu has been put to prejudice and he is deprived of making an effective representation for revocation of the order of detention. Hence, on the said ground, the order of detention is vitiated and liable to be quashed. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 14.12.2010 in P.D. No. 23/N.8.A./2010 is set aside. The detenu Accko Kumar alias Kumar S/o Subbaian is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case/proceedings.