Vasanthi vs State of Tamilnadu and Another

V. Dhanapalan, J.—The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated u/s 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2nd respondent passed in C.O.C. No. 19/2013 dated 01.04.2013. The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:--

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 20.03.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Velippalayam Police Station in Crime No. 166 of 2013 for offences under Sections 353, 336 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focussed his argument on the ground that the detaining authority, while considering the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in respect of Crime No. 166 of 2013, the ground case, has failed to do so in respect of the Crime No. 165 of 2013, the 4th adverse case, which shows improper application of mind of the detaining authority and therefore, on this sole ground alone, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail in the ground case and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order. It is pertinent to note here that the detaining authority, while passing order of detention, has to give consideration to all the material particulars. But to the contrary, in the instant case, the ground case registered in Crime No. 166 of 2013 has alone been taken into consideration, thereby omitting to mention the Crime No. 165 of 2013, the 4th adverse case, by the authorities concerned, which really shows non application of mind and lethargic attitude on the part of detaining authority. Thus, for the reason stated hereinabove, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained and is vitiated. Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Kavi @ Kaviyarasan, S/o. Mahalingam, made in C.O.C. No. 19/2013 dated 01.04.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.