1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE CHITRA VENKATARAMAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM H.C.P.(MD) No.14 of 2011 Pichaiah .. Petitioner vs. 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. .. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the body of detenu namely Murugan, aged about 33 years son of Pichaiah before this Court who is now detained in the Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli in pursuance to the detention order passed by the 1st respondent in Cr.M.P.No.18/2010 dated 17.9.2010, to call for the records and quash the same and release the detenu at liberty forthwith. For petitioner : Mr.A.Shajahan, for M/s.N.Mohideen Basha For respondents : Mr.P.N.Pandidurai, Addl.Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by CHITRA VENKATARAMAN, J) This Habeas Corpus Petition challenges an Order of Detention made by the first respondent on 17.09.2010 in Cr.M.P.No.18/2010, whereby the son of the petitioner, by name, Murugan, was ordered to be detained branding him as a “Goonda” under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Boot-Leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents as well and perused the order under challenge. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. It is seen in the detention order, particularly, in Paragraph No.5 that except for noting that the detenu was in remand in Lalgudi PS Cr.No.477/2010, and also with reference to the adverse cases, and that he has not made any bail applications; there is hardly any material which indicates that there was imminent possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application. Any failure to record such subjective satisfaction would naturally entail quashing of the order of detention. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on the decision in Kodeeswari vs. District Collector and District Magistrate, Virudhunagar District, Virudhunagar and others [(2009) 1 MLJ (Crl) 143 wherein this Court pointed out that the detaining authority must appraise itself of the fact that the detenu was in remand on the date when the detention order was passed and that the detaining authority should satisfy himself that there is a real possibility of the detenu getting bail and failure to record any such observation in the order of detention will render the order vitiated. 5. The impugned order of detention suffers from infirmity as the detention order does not indicate that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu's release on bail. Therefore, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 6. Accordingly, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.18/2010 dated 17.09.2010 passed by the firsts respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. SD/- Deputy Registrar /True Copy/ Assistant Registrar To 1.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli. 2.The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 3.The Inspector of Police, Lalgudi Police Station, Tiruchirappalli District. 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. +1 CC TO MR. N. MOHIDEEN BASHA, ADVOCATE S.R NO. 9855 H.C.P.(MD)No.14 of 2011 24.02.2011 asvm PAM 17.03.2011/6C/2P https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/