IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:17.06.2008 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.PALANIVELU HCP.NO.71 OF 2008 V.Mohanraj ...Petitioner Vs. 1.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 2.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. ..Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the detention made in C.No.61/IS/2007 dated 2.9.2007 passed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein to set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu before this Court and set the detenu Mohanraj at liberty. For petitioner: Mr.M.Dhamodaran For Respondents : Mr.M.Babu Muthu Meeran Additional Public Prosecutor https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM,J) Challenge is made to the order of the second respondent made in C.No.61/IS/2007 dated 2.9.2007 whereby the detenu who is the petitioner herein was termed as 'Goonda' and detained under the provisions of Act 14 of 1982. 2. Affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The order under challenge is also perused. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-State. 3.Concedly, the impugned order came to be passed by the Commissioner of Police, Coimbatore, the first respondent herein on the recommendations made by the Sponsoring Authority, placing particulars in respect of 5 adverse cases viz., in Crime No.1407 of 2005 under Section 457 and 380 IPC, Crime No.1421 of 2005 under Section 457 and 380 IPC of B-6, Peelamedu Police Station and Crime No. 232 of 2006 under Section 457 and 380 IPC, Crime No.869 of 2006 under Sections 457 and 380 IPC and in Crime No.343 of 2007 under Section 457 and 380 IPC of B-7 Ramanathapuram Police Station and another case as ground case which was registered in Crime No.359 of 2007 under Section 397 IPC B-7, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore City and other materials also, the detaining authority has recorded that it has arrived at a subjective satisfaction on the materials available to record a finding that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order and peace and hence he was to be termed as 'Goonda' and in order to prevent him from indulging in such activities, a necessity arose to pass an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing his arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: The order of detention came to be passed on 2.9.2007 where five adverse cases and one ground case were relied upon. When the copies were furnished to the detenu, a bail order made by the Judicial Magistrate No.6 Coimbatore granting bail was given to him. But a perusal of the bail order would reveal that it was a case registered by B7, Ramanathapuram Police Station in Crime No.322 of 2006 under Section 457,and 390 IPC. The said order would clearly reveal that the crime number was not pertaining either to any of the five adverse cases or the ground case and thus it would be quite clear that the materials placed before the detaining authority were entirely different from the one what is required of. Secondly, though the arrest was made on 4.5.2007, the detention order came to be passed on 2.9.2007 and thus there was unreasonable delay in passing https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order and hence there is no necessity to pass such an order of detention. Thirdly, according to the police Department, the confessional statement was recorded from the detenu and a copy of the same was also placed before the detaining authority by the sponsoring authority. A reading of the confessional statement would reveal that it was the confessional statement recorded in Crime No.422 of 2007 under Section 380 IPC, but this was not one of the case shown as adverse case or the ground case and hence it was under such circumstances, the detaining authority should have called for explanation in order to get himself clarified, but it has not done so, which would all go to speak about the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Hence, the detention order has got to be set aside. 5. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions. 6. The Court paid its anxious consideration to the submissions made and looked into the materials available. After doing so, this Court is of the considered opinion that this Court has to necessarily quash the order. It is not in controversy that the order of detention came to be passed by the first respondent after recording the subjective satisfaction on the scrutiny of the materials available pertaining to 5 adverse cases and one ground case registered against the detenu by B6 Peelamedu Police Station and B7 Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore in different crime numbers and the occurrence happened on different dates. A perusal of the materials would clearly indicate that it was a case where the detaining authority should have called for clarification. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, a copy of the bail order passed by the Judicial Magistrate No.6, Coimbatore was not placed before the detaining authority. A perusal of the order would clearly reveal that the crime number is shown as Crime No.322 of 2006, but the said crime number was not shown as adverse case or the ground case and it would cast doubt that whether the bail order was passed in a different case. Further, in so far as the other contention is concerned, a copy of the confessional statement alleged to have been given by the accused was placed before the detaining authority where the crime number is shown as 422 of 2007, but such a crime number was not registered against the petitioner, but it is found to be different one. Under such circumstances, a duty is cast upon the detaining authority to call for clarification. But, without doing so, it could not have arrived at a subjective satisfaction. The proper scrutiny of all the materials available would have made to call for clarification but it was not done so. Under such circumstances, as rightly pointed out by the petitioner, it was thoroughly non-application of time which was the result of the impugned order. Hence, without hesitation, it has got to be set aside and accordingly quashed,. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the first respondent in C.No.61/G/IS/2007 dated 02.09.2007, The detenu, namely, V.Mohanraj, who is now confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. sd/- Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar VJY To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Detaining Authority, Coimbatore City, Coimbatore. 2.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (law & Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High court, Madras 104 +1 cc To Mr.M.Dhamodaran, Advocate, SR.30039 HCP.NO.71 OF 2008 ck [co] gkg/1.7 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/