@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M. Chockalingam, J.@mdashThis petition is brought forth by the brother of the detenu challenging the order of the second respondent in order
No. 49/2010 dated 03.02.2010, whereby his brother Senthil @ Senthilkumar 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.
3. It is not in controversy that pursuant to the recommendation made by the Sponsoring Authority that the detenu is involved in two adverse cases
viz. (i) H-4 Korukkupet Police Station Crime No. 258/2009 for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 336, 294(b) of the Indian Penal Code and
Section 3(1) of the T.N.P.P.(D and L) Act. (ii) H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar Police Station Crime No. 925 of 2009 for the offences under Sections 147,
148, 341, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and one ground case in Crime No. 927 of 2009 registered by H-6 Dr. R.K. Nagar police
station for the offences under Sections 341, 353, 336, 427, 307 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code for the incident that had taken place on
16.12.2009 and the detenu was arrested on the same 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. Advancing arguments on behalf of the petitioner, learned Counsel raised two points. Firstly, a bail application was actually filed in the ground
case on 4.01.2010 and the same was allowed on 12th January, 2010. After furnishing sureties, the detenu was let on bail and he was complying
with the conditions imposed in the bail order. However, in the detention order, the observation of the Detaining Authority that if the detenu is let to
remain at large, he will indulge in further activities, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order is non-application of mind and the
circumstances did not warrant for making such an order.
5. Learned Counsel, pointing to the First Information Report and other material documents such as arrest card, observation mahazar etc., in crime
No. 927 of 2010, would submit that the case was actually registered and investigation was done by one. K. Narayanan, but it was found in the
order as if the case was registered and investigated by one S. Saravana Prabu and thus, when there is a material discrepancy in those documents,
which are relied upon documents, a clarification should have been called for by the Detaining Authority, but not done so. On these grounds, the
order of detention has got to be set aside.
6. This Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions and paid its anxious consideration on the submissions
made.
7. Insofar as the first ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the Court is unable to see any force. It is an admitted
position that the detenu applied for bail in the ground case and he was enlarged on bail. After he came out on bail, the detention order was passed.
In the said order, the Detaining Authority observed that if the detenu is at large, he would indulge in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of
public order. What are all required to be arrived at by the Detaining Authority is the subjective satisfaction before passing the detention order.
8. As could be seen from the material available, the detenu is involved in three cases viz. two adverse cases and one ground case. A perusal of the
First Information Report in the second adverse case and the ground case would clearly indicate that he is alleged to have committed the offence in
the public place and entire tranquility was in peril. Hence, the Authorities are perfectly in correct in recording the subjective satisfaction that if he is
let out, he will indulge in the activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, the first ground raised by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner cannot be accepted.
9. Insofar as the second ground is concerned, this Court is able to see force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Crime No.
927 of 2009 was actually registered by one R.K. Narayanan, Inspector of Police, who conducted the investigation and caused the arrest and
prepared all the material documents such as Observation mahazar, arrest card etc. In the order under challenge, it is pointed out that the
registration of the case and arrest were all done by another Inspector S. Saravana Prabhu and thus, it is needless to say that all the above
documents, viz. First Information Report, Observation mahazar, arrest report are vital and relied on documents. When there is a discrepancy in
material particulars, which is a vital and relied on document, the Detaining Authority should have called for clarification in that regard, but not done
so, which would cause prejudice to the interest of the detenu and also would indicate the non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining
Authority, which would be suffice to set aside the order and thus, on the second ground, the order of detention has got to be set aside.
10. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the detention order passed by the second respondent in No. 49/2010 dated
3.2.2010. The detenu, namely, Senthil @ Senthilkumar, 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.
