@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashThis petition challenges an order of the second Respondent dated 30.4.2010, whereby the Petitioner''s husband D. Rajesh was ordered to be detained under Act 14/82 branding him as a Goonda.
2. All the materials available and in particular, the order under challenge, are perused. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the sponsoring authority that the said detenu was involved in three adverse cases namely (1) R4 Soundarapandianar Angadi PS Cr. No. 286/2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC; (2) R4 Soundarapandianar Angadi PS Cr. No. 311/2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC and (3) R4 Soundarapandianar Angadi PS Cr. No. 316/2010 under Sections 406 and 420 IPC, and also in a ground case registered by R4 Soundarapandianar PS in Crime No. 323/2010 under Sections 341, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC for an occurrence that had taken place on 12.4.2010, and he was arrested on the same day, and on scrutiny of the entire materials, the detaining authority namely the second Respondent herein, has made the order under challenge after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.
4. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner inter alia raised the following points:
(i) Paragraph 4 of the grounds of detention reads as if he has not moved for bail in any one of the adverse cases. Contrarily, the booklet contains from page Nos. 86 to 109, the bail applications filed in all the three adverse cases in Crime Nos. 286, 311 and 316 of 2010. Those applications were actually pending when the order came to be passed on 30.4.2010. Thus it would be indicative of the non-application of mind.
(ii) As far as the ground case was concerned, the bail application was actually dismissed on 27.4.2010, by the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, in Crl.M.P. No. 3799/ 2010, and thus it would be quite clear that the authority has not adverted its attention that the bail application filed in the ground case, was dismissed on 27.4.2010, and all other bail applications were pending. Under the circumstances, the observation made by the authority that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, was without any basis or material, and it would also be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the authority.
5. Apart from the above, the learned Counsel took the Court to page Nos. 55 and 56, the arrest card in English version and in vernacular respectively, wherein it is found that the arrest was actually made on 12.4.2010 at about 11.30 A.M. in the English version; but in the vernacular, the time is not mentioned. He would further submit that equally in the English version, the arrest date is actually shown as 12.4.2010 at about 12.30 hours, but in the Tamil version, it is mentioned as 15.2.2010; that all discrepancies were noticed, but the authority has not called for any explanation in that regard, and hence all would suffice to set aside the order.
6. The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on all the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made.
7. As could be seen above, the detaining authority after recording its subjective satisfaction that the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, has made the order under challenge. It is an admitted position that the bail applications filed by the detenu in the adverse cases, were pending and the bail application filed in the ground case was dismissed by the Principal Sessions Division, Chennai, on 27.4.2010, at the time when the order came to be made. But, the authority has not taken into account the said factual position, but has observed that there was a real possibility of his coming out on bail. This was without any basis or material, much less cogent material which the law would require. It would also be indicative of the non-application of mind on the part of the authority. Hence the order has become infirm.
8. Apart from the above, page Nos. 55 and 56, the arrest card in English Version and Tamil version respectively, would indicate that the arrest was made on 12.4.2010, at about 11.30 A.M. as per the English version, but in the Tamil version, the time is not mentioned. Besides that, the date of arrest is actually stated in the English version as 12.4.2010 at about 12.30 hours. But it is mentioned in the Tamil version as 15.2.2010. Thus, it can be well stated that all discrepancies were noticed. In such circumstances, the detaining authority should have called for an explanation, but not done so. On the above grounds, this Court is of the view that the order has got to be set aside.
9. Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of detention passed by the second Respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
