IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 07.04.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN HCP. No.2403 of 2009 Mrs. D. Renu ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to Government, (Home), Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Villupuram District, Villupuram. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in C2/44319/2009 dated 21.12.2009 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Dharmalingam, son of Arumuga Gounder, aged 52 years, husband of the petitioner now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr. S. Saravana Kumar For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to an order of detention passed by the second respondent on 21.12.2009, whereby the husband of the petitioner Dharmalingam was ordered to be detained under the Act 14 of 1982 branding him as "Goonda". 2. This Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. Admittedly, pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case in Vikravandi police station Crime No.388 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the ground case in Crime No.483 of 2009 registered by Vikravandi police station for the offences under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code, in which case, the detenu was arrested on 31.10.2009 and remanded to judicial custody, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials, after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, passed the order under challenge. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that insofar as adverse case in Crime No.388 of 2009 was concerned, copy of arrest card was not supplied to the detenu. Secondly, anticipatory bail was moved and the same was also granted by this Court in Crime No.19643 of 2009 and copy of the order has been given only in English version, but no translated version was supplied to the detenu, enabling him to understand the crux of the order. 5. Further, the detenu was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate in the adverse case on 31.10.2009. Originally, anticipatory bail was granted by this Court imposing conditions, but the conditions were not actually complied with by him. Then, he was produced on 31.10.2009 on the date on which the report was also submitted to that effect by the sponsoring Authority, but it did not contain the date as to when it was actually submitted. 6. Insofar as crime No.483 of 2009 was concerned, the application for bail was actually pending. Learned counsel would further add that insofar as Crime No.388 of 2009 was concerned, the application for anticipatory bail was made and the same was also granted. But the detenu could not get the benefit of anticipatory bail since he could not furnish the surety. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Under such circumstances, when bail application was pending in Crime No.483 of 2009, the observation made by the Detaining Authority that it is most likely he may come out on bail is without any basis or material whatsoever. Once anticipatory bail was granted and the detenu could not have the benefit and another application was filed and the same is pending, the Authority could not have observed that it is most likely he may come out on bail. On these grounds, the detention order is liable to be set aside. 8. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 9. Admittedly, an order of detention came to be made on the recommendations of the sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case in Vikravandi police station Crime No.388 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 417, 420 of the Indian Penal Code and the ground case in Crime No.483 of 2009 registered by Vikravandi police station for the offences under Sections 392 and 397 of the Indian Penal Code. It is also an admitted position that the detenu was arrested and produced before the Judicial Magistrate on 31.10.2009. It could be seen from the materials that the detenu moved for anticipatory bail before this court in Crl.O.P. No.19643 of 2009 and the same was granted, but he could not comply with the conditions made therein and again, he was arrested and produced before the Court and thereafter, he was sent for judicial remand. 10. The sponsoring Authority though it fit to submit a report before the detaining Authority, but it did not contain the date on which it was sent. No arrest card was supplied to the detenu. Further, insofar as anticipatory bail was concerned, English version was only supplied, but Tamil version was not supplied, enabling him to understand the substance of the order. 11. Added further, the detenu has filed a bail application before this Court in respect of Crime No.483 of 2009 and the same is pending. However, the observation made by the detaining Authority that it is most likely he may come out on bail is without any basis. The observation of the Authority is without any material, much less cogent material. Hence, all these grounds would be suffice to vitiate the detention order. 12. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in C2/44319/2009 dated 21.12.2009. The detenu, namely, Dharmalingam, who is now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore is directed to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1.The Secretary to Government, (Home), The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate of Villupuram District, Villupuram. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore 4.The Joint Secretary to Govt. Public(Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court,Madras. +1cc to M/s.S.Saravanakumar, Advocate Sr 22821 RV(CO) km/27.4. H.C.P. No.2403 of 2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/