IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED:- 22.10.2010 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M. CHOCKALINGAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.S. KARNAN H.C.P. No.1505 of 2010 Venkatesan ... Petitioner Vs. 1. State: rep. by, Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to direct the respondents to produce the detenu Venkatesan, son of Natarajan, aged about 40 years, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 66 in pursuance of the detention order passed by the second respondent on 28.4.2010 in Memo No.238/BDFGISSV/2010 before this Court, call for the records, set aside the order and set the detenu at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr. C.C. Chellappan For Respondents: Mr. M. Babu Muthu Meeran, Additional Public Prosecutor O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by M. CHOCKALINGAM,J) This petition is brought forth by the detenu himself challenging the order of the second respondent in Memo No.238/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 28.4.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. The Court heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and looked into the materials available on record, in particular, the order under challenge. 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in one adverse case viz. Crime No.285 of 2010 registered by J1 Saidapet Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code @ 147, 148, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.291 of 2010 registered by J-1 Saidapet police station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 234, 384 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 28.3.2010 and the detenu surrendered before the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate Court, George Town, Chennai on 29.3.2010, the Detaining Authority, on scrutiny of materials placed, passed the detention order, after arriving at the subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, which is the subject matter of challenge before this Court. 4. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel would submit that the detenu has moved a bail application in the adverse case in Crime No.285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.3973 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 26.4.2010 and the detention order was passed on 28.4.2010 i.e. within a short span of two days. Apart from this, the detenu has not filed any bail application in respect of ground case in Crime No.291 of 2010, which has not been considered by the Detaining Authority. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The said observation is without any basis. 5. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made. 6. As could be seen from the available materials, the Detaining Authority has made the order of detention terming the detenu as a Goonda, on the strength of the materials placed before him pertaining to one adverse case and one ground case as referred to above, and has recorded its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. 7. It is an admitted position that the detenu has moved a bail application in the adverse case in Crime No.285 of 2010 before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.3973 of 2010 and the same was dismissed on 26.4.2010 and the detention order came to be passed on 28.4.2010 i.e. within a short span of two days. Apart https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ from this, the detenu has not filed any bail application in respect of ground case in Crime No.291 of 2010, which has not been considered by the Detaining Authority. But the Authority has observed in paragraph 4 of the detention order as follows:- " 4. I am aware that Thiru. Venkatesan, is in remand in J.1 Saidapet Police Station Crime Nos.285/2010 and 291/2010 and he has moved a bail application before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai in Crl.M.P. No.3973/2010 for J.1 Saidapet Police Station Cr.No.285/2010 and the same was dismissed. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru. Venkatesan are taking action to take him on bail by filing another bail application for the above cases before the appropriate Court. In a case registered in R-7 K.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No.301/2009 registered under Sections 147, 148, 341 and 302 IPC in Crl.O.P. No.13843/2009 bail was granted by the Hon'ble High Court. In a case registered u/s 341, 294(b), 324 and 506(ii) IPC at R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station Cr.No.563/2009 bail was granted in Crl.M.P. No.2710/09 by the Learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Saidapet. Hence that there is real possibility of his coming out on bail, by filing a bail application in the above case before the appropriate Court. If he comes out on bail, he will indulge in further activities which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Further the recourse to normal criminal law would not have the desired effect of effectively preventing him from indulging in such activities, which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. On the materials placed before me, I am fully satisfied that the said Thiru.Venkatesan is also a Goonda and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from indulging in such further activities in future which are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982." 8. From the above, it is quite clear that the observation of the Detaining Authority is without any material. It is only an expression of the impression in the mind of the Authority and only an inference and that too without any basis or materials much less cogent materials as the law would require. On these grounds, the order of detention has got to be set aside. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.238/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 28.4.2010. The detenu, namely, Venkatesan, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody/detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Asst. Registrar //true copy// Sub Asst.Registrar ssa. To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-104. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-104. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai-104. H.C.P. No.1505 of 2010 GV {CO} TP/8.11.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/