IIN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 24.1.2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVA KUMAR H.C.P.No.1758 of 2007 Pichammal .. Petitioner Vs. 1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram District .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vaidvel Murugan For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The petitioner, wife of the detenu Kullabass @ Lakshmanan, who has been clamped with an order of detention by the second respondent, on arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Bootlegger and has to be detained under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), seeks to call for the records relating to the order of detention dated 21.11.2007 made in Ref.No.C2/51093/2007, to quash the same and the produce the detenu, who is now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore, before this Court and set him at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2.1. The order of detention dated 21.11.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case in Crime No.138 of 2007 on the file of Kariyalur Police Station for an alleged commission of offence under Sections 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(i) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act. On 1.11.2007, the Inspector of Police, Kachirapalayam Circle, along with his police party, conducted prohibition raid in Puduvalavu Village. At that time, the detenu was found sitting on the ground at the backside of his house and pouring arrack in a glass tumbler from one white colour plastic can and receiving money before giving it to the person standing before him. On seeing the police party, the said person who came to consume arrack escaped from that place. Hence, a case was registered and the detenu was arrested. The chemical analysis report of the samples taken from the arrack seized from the detenu disclosed that the arrack contained atropine of 2.6 mgms per 100 ml. 2.2. Apart from the above, the detaining authority also took note of five adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime No.701/2006 on the file of Kallakurichi Prohibition Enforcement Wing for the offence under Section 4(1)(aaa) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and Crime Nos.76/2006, 90/2006, 117/2006 and 133/2007 on the file of Kariyalur Police Station for the offence under Sections 4(1-A), 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1)(g) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and having satisfied that the detenu is indulging in activities which are prejudicial to maintenance of public health and public order, passed the impugned order. 3. Heard both sides. We have perused the materials produced before us. 4. The main contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detaining authority, having stated that the detenu is in remand in connection with last adverse case and the ground case, had not arrived at subjective satisfaction with regard to the imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in connection with the last adverse case and therefore, the same vitiates the impugned order of detention on the ground of non application of mind by the detaining authority. 5. Concededly, in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has observed that the detenu is in remand in connection with the ground case and as well as the last adverse case and he has moved a bail application before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Villupuram in Crl.M.P.No.12458 of 2007 with respect to the ground case and the same is pending. Further, he has observed that all the bail applications are pending before the Court, thereby meaning that the detenu had also filed a bail application in connection with the last adverse case. But, the fact remains that the detenu had not filed any bail application with respect to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the last adverse case, as evident from paragraph (d) of the counter filed on behalf of the State. 6. We are, therefore, satisfied that there is total non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the impugned order of detention. Accordingly, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is quashed. This petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other crime. No costs. kpl Sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Villupuram District. 3. The Superintendent Central Prison, Cuddalore. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9 5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.S.Vadivel Murugan, Advocate Sr.No.2982. NSM(CO) DCP/31.1 HCP No.1758 of 2007. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/