IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 27.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P. No.764 of 2010 Shyam Sundar Singh ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep. by its Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai – 8. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention No.69/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.02.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai – 600 008, the second respondent herein under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in pursuant of which the petitioner/detenu has been detained in the Central Prison at Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. J. Thilagaraj For Respondents: Mr. 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 detenu himself challenging the order passed by the second respondent in No.69/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.02.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a "Goonda" under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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 four adverse cases viz. (i) V-3 J.J. Nagar Police Station Crime No.2576/2005 for the offences under Sections 448, 365, 385 and and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and (ii) K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.1060/2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 394, 324, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) V-1 Villivakkam Police Station Crime No.157/2010 for the offences under Sections 341, 384 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station Crime No.131/2010 for the offence under Section 392 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.138 of 2010 registered by K-4 Anna. Nagar Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 336, 294 (b), 397, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 07.2.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the same 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. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that in the ground case in Crime No.138 of 2010, the detenu has moved a bail application before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.1333 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. When the detention order was passed on 15.02.2010, no bail application was pending. But the Detaining Authority has observed in the detention order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis or materials much less cogent materials. 5. Learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that the special report did not contain the date. Learned counsel added further that insofar as the ground case was concerned, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In so far as second, third and fourth adverse cases in Crime Nos.1060 of 2009, 157 and 131 of 2010 are concerned, the detenu was not remanded at all, which is evident from paragraph 4 of the detention order. But a perusal of the booklet shows that the documents contain those remand orders, but they were actually not referred in the order of detention. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7. 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 four 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. 8. It is an admitted position that in the ground case in Crime No.138 of 2010, the detenu has moved a bail application before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.1333 of 2010 and the same was dismissed. When the detention order was passed on 15.02.2010, no bail application was pending. But the Detaining Authority has observed in the detention order as follows:- " 4. I am aware that Thiru. Shyam Sundar Singh is in remand in K-4 Anna Nagar Police Station Crime No.138/2010 and he was not remanded in K-4 Anna Nagar P.S. Cr.No.1060/09 though he was formally arrested in V.1 Villivakkam P.S. Cr.No.157/10 and V.5 Thirumangalam P.S. Cr.No.131/10 and has moved a bail application for K.4 Anna Nagar P.S. Cr.No.138/10 before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.1333/2010 and the same was dismissed. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru.Shyam Sundar Singh are taking action to take him on bail in the above adverse case by filing another bail application before the Court and since in a similar case registered under Sections 341 and 307 IPC at F-2 Royapettah police Station Cr.No.382/2009, bail was granted in Crl.M.P. No.5266/2009 by the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, within 21 days. Hence, there is a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing another bail application in the above case 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 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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.Shyam Sundar Singh is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." From the above, it is clear that the observation of the authority 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 material as the law would require. 9. Apart from this, the special report did not contain the date as to when it was placed before the Detaining Authority. Hence, it remains unknown to the detenu as to whether the special report was considered by the Detaining Authority or not. Added further, insofar as the ground case was concerned, the detenu was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. In so far as second, third and fourth adverse cases in Crime Nos.1060 of 2009, 157 and 131 of 2010 are concerned, the detenu was not remanded at all, which is evident from paragraph 4 of the detention order. A perusal of the booklet shows that the documents contain those remand orders, but they were actually not referred to in the order of detention. The Detaining Authority should have called for clarification in this regard, but not done so. On these grounds, the detention order has got to be set aside. 10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.69/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 15.02.2010. The detenu, namely, Shyam Sundar Singh, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Chennai – 8. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.J. Thilagaraj, advocate, Sr. 63755 H.C.P. No.764 of 2010 JP (CO) kk 24/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/