IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 21.03.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.NAGAPPAN and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR H.C.P. No.2394 of 2010 Prem @ Premkumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Sub-Urban Area St.Thomas Mount Chennai – 600 016 2.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariate Chennai – 600 009 .. Respondents Prayer : Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner/detenu Thiru Prem @ Premkumar, son of Anthony @ Anthony Pitchai, aged 26 years now detained in Central Prison No.II, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in BDFGISSV No.187 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 by the first respondent and set aside the same order and set the petitioner/detenu at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :: Mr. K.Ethirajalu For Respondents :: Mr. A.D.Jagadish Chandira, Addl.P.P. O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.R.SHIVAKUMAR.,J.) The petitioner, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 based on the order of detention passed by the first respondent in Detention Order No.187 of 2010 dated 02.10.2010 holding him to be a "Goonda" as per the definition found in Section 2(1)(f) of the said Act, has come forward with the present Habeas Corpus Petition for quashing the said order of detention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The detaining authority referred to a single case, namely the ground case registered on the file of S8, Adambakkam Police Station as Crime No.521 of 2010 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC and expressed a subjective satisfaction that the petitioner is to be termed "Goonda" and his presence at large will be detrimental to the maintenance of public order and hence, clamping of an order of detention on him is necessitated. 3.Though several grounds have been raised for assailing the order of detention, the learned counsel for the petitioner mainly relies on the contention that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority regarding habituality of the petitioner in committing offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of the Indian Penal Code is not based on sufficient materials and on the other hand, based on a solitary incident, the detaining authority has arrived at such a subjective satisfaction. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits further that no habituality can be inferred, however graver the offence might be, from the solitary incident. 4. We have also heard the submissions made by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above said points raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the detaining authority has chosen to clamp the order of detention stamping the petitioner as a "Goonda" based on the ground case alone, namely Crime No.521 of 2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 380 IPC on the file of S8, Adambakkam Police Station. Even in the narration of facts in the grounds of detention there is no recital to the effect that the petitioner was found to have been involved in any other incident prior to the incident that led to the registration of the ground case. A solitary incident, based on which the ground case has been registered, is not enough to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner is habitually involved in the commission of offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of IPC. Therefore, we are satisfied with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that the petitioner was habitually committing offences that come under Chapter 16 and 17 of IPC is not based on material and that, on the facts narrated in the grounds of detention, no habituality is made out. On that ground alone, the order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention dated 02.10.2010, is set aside. The detenu Prem @ Premkumar, son of Anthony @ Anthony Pitchai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless her continued custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar gpa To 1.The Commissioner of Police Chennai City Sub-Urban Area St.Thomas Mount, Chennai – 600 016 2.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009 3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai -9. 5. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 1 cc To Mr.K.Ethirajulu, Advocate, SR.19919. H.C.P. No.2394 of 2010 JRG(CO) RVL 08.04.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/