IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 08.01.2008 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.DINAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.REGUPATHI Habeas Corpus Petition No.1641 of 2007 Madhu .. Petitioner Vs 1. State of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of Writ of Habeas Corpus as stated therein. For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents: Mr.N.R.Elango Addl. Public Prosecutor ----- O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by P.D.DINAKARAN,J.) The second respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the petitioner/detenu, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) 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). 2. Challenging the abovesaid detention, the detenu himself has preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to his detention at Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai by the second respondent vide his order in No.400/2007, dated 19.10.2007, to quash the same as illegal and to consequently direct the respondents to produce him before this Court and to set him at liberty. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.1. The order of detention dated 19.10.2007 was passed on the basis of ground case registered in T-12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.768 of 2007 for alleged commission of offences under Sections 341, 427 506(2) r/w 392 IPC. The allegation against the detenu was that on 8.9.2007 at 4.00 pm, when one Mohan (complainant) was proceeding to a hotel, the detenu along with three others wrongfully restrained him and threatened him at the point of knife and the detenu voluntarily took away Rs.1200/- from the shirt pocket of the complainant. The public heard the hue and cry of the complainant and came for his rescue and tried to apprehend the detenu. On noticing the same, the detenu picked up soda water bottles from a shop and hurled the same against the public. The public who were at the spot noticed the atrocious activities and ran for safer places out of fear of danger to their lives. Taking advantage of the panic situation, the detenu and his associates escaped from the spot. 3.2. That apart, the detaining authority also took note of four adverse cases pending against the detenu in Crime Nos.540 of 2007, 546 of 2007 and 596 of 2007 on the file of Mangadu Police Station for offence under Sections 457, 380, 392 and 511 IPC and in Crime No.1309 of 2007 on the file of S.R.M.C. Police Station. Considering that these activities of the detenu are prejudicial to maintenance of public order, the detaining authority passed the impugned order of detention. 4. The only contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu is in remand in T.12 Poonamallee Police Station Crime No.768 of 2007 (ground case), the remand order found at page 178 of the paper book shows that the detenu was remanded in two other cases in Crime Nos.466 and 617 of 2007, which the detaining authority had not taken note of while dealing with the real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 5. We have perused the materials placed before us. It is seen that the detaining authority in para 4 of the grounds of detention, while dealing with the remand of the detenu and his possibility of coming out on bail, has only referred to the ground case in Crime No.716 of 2007. But, whereas, the remand order found at page 178 of the paper book furnished to the detenu shows that the detenu was remanded in two other cases in Crime No.466 of 2007 and in Crime No.617 of 2007. The non-mentioning of the remand of the detenu in two other cases while dealing with the real possibility of coming out on bail, referred to above, in our considered opinion, would deprive the detenu an opportunity in making his effective representation and hence, has the effect of vitiating the order of detention. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For the reason aforesaid, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required connection with in any other case. Sra Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Joint Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, Public (Law and Order) Department, Fort St George, Chennai 9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.1641 of 2007 BV(CO) SR/1.2.2008 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/