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.1504 of 2010 Varadhan @ Varadharajan ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department., Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 008. ... Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in Memo No.66/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 13.2.2010 on the file of the second respondent pertaining to the petitioner/detenu viz. Vardhan @ Varadharajan S/o Kashinathan before this Court, who is presently confirmed in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr. N. Sivabharathi 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.66/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 13.2.2010, whereby he was ordered to be detained as a Goonda under the provisions of the Act 14 of 1982. 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. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in five adverse cases viz. (i) Crime No.1589 of 2006 registered by F.2 Egmore Police Station for the offence under Section 384 of the Indian Penal Code; (ii) Crime No.103 of 2008 registered by B.3 Fort Police Station for the offences under Sections 454 and 380 of the Indian Penal Code; (iii) Crime No.1061 of 2009 registered by D.1 Triplicane Police Station for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (iv) Crime No.73 of 2010 registered by D.1 Triplicane Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 323, 385 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code; (v) Crime No.76 of 2010 registered by D.1 Triplicane Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 324, 386 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No.79 of 2010 registered by D.1 Triplicane police station for the offences under Sections 353, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on 25.1.2010 and the detenu was arrested on the very day, 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. The only contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the fourth and fifth adverse cases and the ground case, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the detention order itself. In the same paragraph, the Authority has observed 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 five adverse cases 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 not filed any bail application in the fourth and fifth adverse cases and the ground case, which is referred to in paragraph 4 of the detention order itself. In the same paragraph, the Authority has observed that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The observation of the Authority in paragraph 4 of the detention https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ order is as follows:- " 4. I am aware that Thiru. Varadhan @ Varadharajan, is in remand in D.1 Triplicane Police Station Crime Nos.73/2010, 76/2010 and 79/2010 and he has not moved any bail application so far. The sponsoring authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru, Varadhan @ Varadharajan are taking action to take him on bail in the above cases by filing bail application before the appropriate Court since in similar cases in E.2 Royapettah Police Station Cr.No.382/2009 registered sections 341 and 307 IPC bail was granted by the Court of Principal Sessions Judge in Crl.M.P. No.5266/2009. Tr. Varadhan @ Varadharajan is in jail for the past 20 days and the victim in the ground case was treated as outpatient. Hence, there is real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing bail application in the above cases 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 Thiru.Varadhan @ Varadharajan, is also a "GOONDA' and that there is a compelling necessity to detain him in order to prevent him from involving 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 this ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in Memo No.66/BDFGISSV/2010 dated 13.2.2010. The detenu, namely, Varadhan @ Varadharajan, who is now confined at Central Prison, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 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, Greater Chennai, Chennai – 600 008. 3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9. 5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. 1 cc to Mr.N.Siva Bharathi, Advocate, Sr.No.76228 H.C.P. No.1504 of 2010 GG {CO} TP/10.11.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/