1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22.07.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.P.S.JANARTHANA RAJA AND THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE ARUNA JAGADEESAN HCP(MD)No.356/2011 Shenbagam Servai Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 2.The Commissioner of Police, Madurai City Madurai Respondents Prayer:- This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for records from the 2nd respondent in No.86/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 01.10.2010, to set aside the same, to produce the detenu Arumugam @ CD Arumugam, S/o.Shenbagam Servai, aged about 24 years, now detained in the Central Prison, Madurai and to set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.M.Ramu For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh, Additional Public Prosecutor, ORDER (Order of the Court was made by ARUNA JAGADEESAN J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu. The petitioner has come forward with this Habeas Corpus Petition, seeking for the relief of quashing the impugned detention order dated 01.10.2010, slapped on his son as “Goonda” as contemplated under the 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 14/1982). 2. Mr.M.Ramu, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the impugned order of detention was passed without there being any material whatsoever to arrive the conclusion that the detenu was likely to move a bail application and that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail in the ground case, without any subjective satisfaction. Therefore, he would submit that the impugned order of detention is vitiated. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. It is contended that the detaining authority has observed that there is a possibility of filing a bail application by the detenu through his mother and further that the detenu was in the habit of indulging in criminal offences and as such, the detaining authority rightly passed the impugned detention order. 4. The perusal of the impugned order of detention would reveal that the detaining authority has stated that the bail application filed by the detenu in the ground case in Cr.MP.No.5244/2010 was dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate IV, Madurai on 23.8.2010 and another bail application filed on his behalf in Crl.MP.No.3449/ 2010 was also dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai on 21.9.2010. The detaining authority has further stated that through the statement of one Irulayi, the mother of the detenu, he had come to know that she is making efforts to file further bail application in the ground case. On the said ground, he has stated that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail in the said ground case by filing further bail application. 5. The above said findings of the detaining authority is based on mere surmises and conjectures. Admittedly, the detenu has filed two bail applications and the same were dismissed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No.IV, Madurai and the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Madurai. He has not filed any bail application even on the date of passing the impugned detention order. But, the detaining authority has stated that on the statement given by the mother of the detenu, he had come to know that the detenu is likely to file a bail application. The statement of the mother of the detenu indicates that she is making only arrangements and she has not yet filed any application for bail on behalf of the detenu. Therefore, without any cogent material available on record the detaining authority has arrived at the conclusion that the detenu is likely to file a bail application and there was real possibility of his coming out on bail once he files the bail application. Inference from the available materials on record is not sufficient and there is no subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority to come to such a conclusion. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to refer to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in T.V.Saravanan alias S.A.R.Prasanna Venkatachariar Chaturvedi v. State, through Secretary and Another reported in 2006 (1) MLJ (Crl) 539. The Hon'ble Apex court in the said decision held as hereunder: “The Courts had rejected the bail applications moved by the appellant and there was no material whatsoever to apprehend that he was likely to move a bail application or that there was imminent possibility of the prayer for bail being granted. The “imminent possibility” of the appellant coming out on bail is mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority unsupported by any material whatsoever. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 There was no cogent material before the detaining authority on the basis of which the detaining authority could be satisfied that the detenu was likely to be released on bail. The inference has to be drawn from the available material on record. In the absence of such material on record the mere ipse dixit of the detaining authority is not sufficient to sustain the order of detention.” 7. The principle laid down in the decision cited supra has squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. In this case also, the detaining authority in the absence of any cogent material available on record has come to the conclusion that the detenu can file bail petition at any time before the court to come out on bail and as such, the impugned order of detention is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed. 8. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order passed by the 2nd respondent in No.86/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 01.10.2010 is hereby quashed and the detenu Arumugam @ CD Arumugam is set at liberty forthwith, unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(AE) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To: 1. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT HOME, PROHIBITIN AND EXCISE DEPT, SECRETARIATE, CHENNAI - 9 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MADURAI CITY, MADURAI 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AND COLLECOR, MADURAI 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENRAL PRISON, MADURAI 5. THE JOINT SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC (LAW & ORDER), FORT ST. GEORGE, CHENNAI – 9 6.THE ADDITIONAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI srcm ssk/02.08.2011 /7c -3p/- HCP(MD)No.356/2011 22.07.2011 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/