1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 28.06.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI Habeas Corpus Petition(MD)No.230 of 2011 B.Sarasu .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-9. 2.The Commissioner of Police, Trichy City, Trichy. .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records connected with the detention order of Respondent No.2 in C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.64/2010 dated 24.09.2010 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the detenu by name Pandian @ Sarayapandian, aged 25 years, now confined in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.C.M.Arumugam For Respondents : Mr.P.Jothi, Addl.Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by S.RAJESWARAN, J.) Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent in his Proceedings C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.64/2010 dated 24.09.2010 whereby the petitioner's son by name Pandian @ Saraya Pandian was ordered to be detained under the provisions of Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) branding him as a "GOONDA". 2. Advancing the arguments assailing the order of the detention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the detention order is vitiated on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. He submitted that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the ground case as well as in the adverse cases. Despite that, the detaining authority has stated that if he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 order. Therefore, the detaining authority has passed the order without applying its mind. 3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the records. 4. It is seen in Paragraph No.5 of the detention order that "I am aware that Pandian @ Saraya Pandian, is in remand in Srirangam P.S. Cr.No.670/2010, Thogur P.S. Cr.No.102/2010, Fort P.S.Cr.No.2036/2010 and Woraiyur P.S.Cr.No.1615/2010. He has not filed any bail application so far in these cases." While stating so, the detaining authority has observed that "If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in future activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order." There is also no cogent material to arrive at the conclusion that there was a compelling necessity to detain the detenu. Thus, there was non- application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the order of detention. Under the circumstances, the order of detention has to be set aside. 5.Accordingly, the detention order in C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.64/2010 dated 24.09.2010 passed by the second respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (A.S) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar (C.S) To 1. THE SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, HOME PROHIBITION AND EXCISE DEPARTMENT, CHENNAI-9. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE TRICHY CITY, TRICHY. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, TRICHY. 4. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER), FORT ST. GOEORGE, CHENNAI – 9. 5. THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI. + 1 cc to Mr.C.M.Arugam, Advocate, SR No.20335 HCP(MD)No.230 of 2011 28.06.2011 KM RJ/14.7.11 2p/7c https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/