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.326 of 2010 D. Senthil ..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, Madurai City, Madurai. ..Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records leading to the detention of the petitioner's friend namely Thiru. Bose, aged 47 years, son of Pitchai, detained under Act 14/82 vide proceedings No.57/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 28.8.2009 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in the proceedings and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of Thiru. Bose, son Pitchai of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison, Madurai. For Petitioner : Mr. R. Krishnamurthy For Respondents : Mr. V.R. Balasubramanian, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to an order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the second respondent, whereby the petitioner's friend Bose has been detained under the Act 14 of 1982, after terming him as "Goonda". https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendations made by the sponsoring Authority that the detenu was involved in one adverse case viz. Madurai Railway Police Station Crime No.528 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 341, 352, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and also a ground case in Crime No.529 of 2009 registered by Madurai Railway Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 2 and 3 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 for the occurrence that had taken place on 16.8.2009, in which case the detenu was arrested on 19.8.2009, on scrutiny of materials, the Detaining Authority has arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and passed the detention order after terming him as "Goonda". The said order is under challenge in the present habeas corpus petition. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel assailed the order under challenge on the ground that the bail application was actually moved in the ground case in Crl.M.P. No.4027 of 2009 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai and the same was dismissed on the ground that the same would be tried exclusively by the Sessions Court. On the dismissal of the said application, no bail application was moved before the criminal Court. While the matter stood thus, the Authority, after pointing out the said dismissal, observed that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, which has no basis or material. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. The bail application filed by the detenu in respect of Crime No.529 of 2009 was dismissed on 26.8.2009. The order under challenge was passed on 28.8.2009 i.e. within a few days, observing that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the Authority has well stated in his order that the bail application moved before the Judicial Magistrate No.VI, Madurai was dismissed. Under such circumstances, without any basis or material much less cogent material, the Authority has stated that there is a real possibility of detenu coming out on bail, when no bail application was pending. It is only the expression of the Authority without any basis. Law would require not only material but also cogent material to pass the detention order. This ground would be suffice to vitiate the detention order. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No.57/BDFGISSV/2009 dated 28.8.2009. The detenu, namely, Bose, who is now confined at Central Prison, Madurai is directed to be 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 of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Fort St.George, Chennai – 9. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City, Madurai. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. + 1 c.c. to Mr. R. Krishnamurthy, Advocate. S.R.No.22757. H.C.P.No.326 of 2010 KJI (CO) GSK 29.04.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/