IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 30-8-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P.No.691 of 2010 C.Karruppayee .. Petitioner vs State rep. By: 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police (Chennai-Sub-Urban) St. Thomas Mount Chennai 600 016. 3.The Inspector of Police Manali New Town Police Station Chennai 600 103. .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Dhanasekar, S/o.Chandran, Male, aged 27 years, and now confined in Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith by calling for the records relating to the order No.31/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 7.3.2010 on the file of the second respondent and set aside the same. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Mathan For Respondents : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) The petitioner is the mother of the detenu Dhanasekar. She challenges an order of the second respondent made in No.31/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 7.3.2010, whereby her son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also the learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the State. The Court also looked into the materials available including the grounds of detention. 3.Pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases namely (1) E5 Sholavaram PS Cr.No.776/2009 under Sections 147, 148, 341, 302 IPC r/w 149 IPC r/w 120(b) IPC r/w 109 IPC; (2) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.394/2009 under Sec.302 r/w 120(b) IPC; (3) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.64/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506(ii) IPC; (4) M5 Ennore PS Cr.No.65/2010 under Sections 364, 384 and 506 (ii) IPC and (5) M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.19/2010 under Sections 294(b), 384 and 506(ii) IPC, and also in one ground case registered by M7 Manali New Town PS Cr.No.26/2010 under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 384, 506(ii) and 397 IPC for an occurrence that took place on 4.3.2010, and he was arrested on the very day and remanded to judicial custody, the detaining authority after scrutiny of the materials placed, formed an opinion that the detenu should be detained under Act 14/82 and hence passed the order which is under challenge. 4.The learned Counsel while assailing the order under challenge put forth two grounds. Firstly, out of the five adverse cases, in two cases he was granted bail, and in the remaining three adverse cases and in the ground case, he has not even moved any bail application. But, the authority has observed that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail which is without any material and basis. Secondly, in the impugned order, he is shown as history sheeted rowdy; but the documents in that regard, were not placed before the detaining authority, and hence the order has become vitiated. 5.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu was involved in five adverse cases and one ground case as referred to above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order of detention which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. As far as the first two adverse cases https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ registered under Sec.302 of IPC are concerned, the materials would go to show that he was actually arrested in one case, and bail was granted. Insofar as the other case under Sec.302 IPC, he was not even arrested. As regards the remaining three adverse cases under Sec.384 IPC, in one case he sought for bail since arrest was shown in that case, and in respect of the other two cases, he has not even moved for bail. As far as the ground case registered under Sections 341, 294(b), 336, 384, 506(ii) and 397 IPC is concerned, he has not even moved for bail. Thus, out of the above six cases, he was granted bail in two cases and in the other four cases, not even bail application was filed. But, the authority has stated that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. This was without any material much less cogent material as the law would require. This would suffice to set aside the order. 7.As regards the second ground, he is shown in page No.6 of the detention order, as history sheeted rowdy. Though it was relied upon, the documents were not actually placed by the sponsoring authority before the detaining authority. Under the circumstances, this would also vitiate the order. Hence, both the grounds, in the considered opinion of this Court, are available to set aside the order. 8.In the result, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the second respondent, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. nsv To: 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police (Chennai-Sub-Urban) St. Thomas Mount Chennai 600 016. 3.The Inspector of Police Manali New Town Police Station Chennai 600 103. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 5. The Superintendent central Prison, Palayamkottai 6. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9 H.C.P.No.691 of 2010 VSV (CO) kk 8/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/