IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 22.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN H.C.P. No.1441 of 2010 Mrs. Sarala ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the detention order from the second respondent pertaining to the proceedings Memo No.163/BDFGISSV/2010, 24.03.2010 and set aside the same and to cause produce the petitioner's son Arun @ Mundakan Arun, S/o Gunasekar, aged about 24 years, illegally detaining at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. A. Vatsala For Respondents : Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This petition is brought forth by the father of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.163/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 24.03.2010, whereby his son Arun @ Mundakan Arun was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in three adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.1580 of 2008 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offence under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.1642 of 2008 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 394, 427 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.269 of 2010 registered by D-5 Marina Police Station for the offence under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.285 of 2010 registered by D-5 Marina police station for the offences under Sections 397, 506(ii), 294(b), 341 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 9.3.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner inter-alia would urge that though the detenu moved for bail in third adverse case and ground case in Crime Nos.269 and 285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318 and 2319 of 2010 respectively, the same were dismissed on 19.3.2010, but the detention order came to be passed on 24.3.2010, i.e. within a short span of five days. Apart from this, both the cases i.e. third adverse case and the ground case were registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. While the applications filed for bail were dismissed on 19.3.2010, there could not have been a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as found in the detention order, which is non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to three adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. It is an admitted position that though the detenu https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ moved for bail in third adverse case and ground case in Crime Nos.269 and 285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318 and 2319 of 2010 respectively, the same were dismissed on 19.3.2010. Apart from this, both the cases i.e. third adverse case and the ground case were registered under Section 397 of the Indian Penal Code. While the applications filed for bail were dismissed on 19.3.2010 and no bail application was pending at the time of passing the detention order, there could not have been a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, as found in the detention order. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:- " 4. I am aware that Thiru. Arun @ Mundakan Arun is in remand in D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 and he has moved bail application for D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 before the Court of Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. Nos.2318/2010 and 2319/2010 respectively and the same were dismissed. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Arun @ Mundakan Arun are taking action to take him on bail in D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 by filing another bail application before the appropriate Court and since in a case registered in R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Cr.No.427/2009 under Section 397 r/w 326 IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. No.3990/09 in 9 days. Similarly, in a case registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC at R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Cr.No.563/2009 bail was granted in Crl.M.P. No.2710/09 by the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application for D-5 Marina Police Station Crime Nos.269/2010 and 285/2010 before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru. Arun @ Mundakan Arun is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 7. From the above, it is quite clear that the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require. On this ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.163/BDFGISSV/2010, 24.03.2010. The detenu, namely, Arun @ Mundakan Arun, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai – 600 008. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc To Miss.A.Vetsala, Advocate, SR.77009 H.C.P. No.1441 of 2010 jvs(co)pmk.9.11.2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/