IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 14-9-2010 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN H.C.P.No.831 of 2010 Nagaraju .. Petitioner vs 1.State of Tamilnadu rep. By its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police Sub-Urban Chennai Sub-Urban Commissioner's Office St. Thomas Mount Chennai 16. .. Respondents Habeas corpus petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records of detention memo No.02/ BDFGISSV/2010 dated 2.1.2010 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu viz. Siva aged 22, S/o. Nagaraju, and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For Respondents : Mr.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This petition challenges an order of detention made by the second respondent dated 2.1.2010, whereby the petitioner's son was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda as described under the provisions of the Act. 2.The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and looked into all the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the detenu is involved in seven adverse cases namely (1) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.144/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (2) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.147/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (3) Woraiyur PS Cr.No.169/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (4) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.639/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (5) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1294/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; (6) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1316/2009 under Sec.379 IPC; and (7) S-15 Selaiyur PS Cr.No.1337/2009 under Sec.379 IPC, and also in a ground case in Crime No.1353/2009 of S-15 Selaiyur PS registered under Sections 341, 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 7.12.2009 and he was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on the very same day, the detaining authority on scrutiny of the materials placed, made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the petitioner were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner raised two points. Firstly, as far as the adverse case Nos.4 to 7 and also the ground case are concerned, no bail application was actually filed by the detenu, but it is observed by the detaining authority in paragraph 4 that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. While grave cases as referred to above were registered, ordinarily bail will not be granted. While number of cases are also pending in Court, no bail application was also filed. Under the circumstances, the question of real possibility does not exist for the detenu to come out on bail. 5.Added further the learned Counsel that it is also mentioned in the very same paragraph that in similar cases bail was granted, but no particulars in that regard were given; that in page No.71 of the booklet, it is stated that a telegraphic message immediately after the arrest of the detenu, was given to his father, but when the telegraphic message is looked into, it was actually given to Siva S/o. Nagaraju; that Siva is the detenu and Nagaraju is the father of the detenu, and thus the telegraphic message would clearly indicate that it was sent to the detenu himself; that under the circumstances, it would not serve the purpose for which it was meant for, and hence it has got to be set aside. 6.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 7.As could be seen above, the petitioner was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 terming him as a Goonda since he was involved in eight cases as mentioned above. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, he has not made any bail application in the adverse cases 4 to 7 and also in the ground case which is quite evident from paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention. Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention reads as follows: "4.I am aware that Thiru. Siva is in remand in S-15, Selaiyur Police Station Crime No's 639/2009, 1294/2009, 1316/2009, 1337/2009 and 1353/2009. He has not filed any https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ bail application so far. I am also aware that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail for the above cases by filing a bail application before the Court of Sessions or Hon'ble High Court, since in similar cases bails are granted by the above courts after a lapse of time." 8.The very reading of the above would clearly indicate that while he has not made any bail application in the adverse cases 4 to 7 and also in the ground case, and all the cases were found to be of grave nature, there is no question of grant of bail that would arise. In such circumstances, it cannot be stated that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, and it cannot but be an expression of the impression in the mind of the authority without any basis or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. 9.Apart from the above, it is pertinent to point out that as could be seen from page 71 of the booklet, the arrest intimation is alleged to have been given to the father whose name is Nagaraju, and the detenu's name is shown as Siva. But, from the copy of the telegraphic message, it would be quite clear that it was given to the detenu himself and not to the father, and thus it did not serve the purpose for which it was to be done and the law would require for the same being done. Both the grounds as put forth by the learned Counsel and recorded above, in the considered opinion of this Court, would make the order under challenge infirm. 10.Accordingly, the order of detention passed by the second respondent is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar nsv To: 1.The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St. George Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police Sub-Urban Chennai Sub-Urban Commissioner's Office St. Thomas Mount Chennai 16. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 5.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 1 cc to Mr.L.Infant Dinesh, Advocate, Sr.No.67796 H.C.P.No.831 of 2010 BK {CO} TP/24.9.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/