IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 25.08.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P. No.684 of 2010 Janaki ... 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 Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, 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 detention of the petitioner's son namely Udaya @ Udayakumar, aged 28 years, S/o Nagarajan under the Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order No.50/2010 dated 03.02.2010 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set at liberty from Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. For Petitioner : Mr. K. Srinivasan For Respondents : Mr. Babu Muthumeeran, 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 mother of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in order No.50/2010 dated 03.02.2010, whereby her son Udaya @ Udayakumar 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 two adverse cases viz. (i) H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.437/2008 for the offences under Sections 341, 324 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code. (ii) H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.925 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.927 of 2009 registered by H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar police station for the offences under Sections 341, 353, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 16.12.2009 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 raised two points. Firstly, a bail application was actually filed in the ground case on 4.01.2010 and the same was allowed on 12th January, 2010. After furnishing sureties, the detenu was let on bail and he was complying with the conditions imposed in the bail order. However, in the detention order, the observation of the Detaining Authority that if the detenu is let to remain at large, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is non-application of mind and the circumstances did not warrant for making such an order. 5. Learned counsel, pointing to the First Information Report and other material documents such as arrest card, observation mahazar etc., in crime No.927 of 2010, would submit that the case was actually registered and investigation was done by one .K. Narayanan, but it was found in the order as if the case was registered and investigated by one S. Saravana Prabu and thus, when there is a material discrepancy in those documents, which are relied upon documents, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority, but not done so. On these grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Insofar as the first ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Court is unable to see any force. It is an admitted position that the detenu applied for bail in the ground case and he was enlarged on bail. After he came out on bail, the detention order was passed. In the said order, the Detaining Authority observed that if the detenu is at large, he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. What are all required to be arrived at by the Detaining Authority is the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order. 8. As could be seen from the material available, the detenu is involved in three cases viz. two adverse cases and one ground case. A perusal of the First Information Report in the second adverse case and the ground case would clearly indicate that he is alleged to have committed the offence in the public place and entire tranquility was in peril. Hence, the Authorities are perfectly in correct in recording the subjective satisfaction that if he is let out, he will indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, the first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. 9. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, this Court is able to see force in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Crime No.927 of 2009 was actually registered by one R.K.Narayanan, Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and caused the arrest and prepared all the material documents such as Observation mahazar, arrest card etc. In the order under challenge, it is pointed out that the registration of the case and arrest were all done by another Inspector S. Saravana Prabhu and thus, it is needless to say that all the above documents, viz. First Information Report, Observation mahazar, arrest report are vital and relied on documents. When there is a discrepancy in material particulars, which is a vital and relied on document, the Detaining Authority should have called for clarification in that regard, but not done so, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the detenu and also would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which would be suffice to set aside the order and thus, on the second ground, the order of detention 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.50/2010 dated 3.2.2010. The detenu, namely, Udaya @ Udayakumar, 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sd/- Asst.Registrar. /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar. ssa. To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai – 8. 3. The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Department Fort St. George, Chennai-9 4. The Superintendent central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. H.C.P. No.684 of 2010 MBS (CO) kk 7/9 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/