PRASANNA KUMAR Vs. STATE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the brother of the detenu, namely, Puli @ Puliyendran, aged 40 years, son of Munirathnam @ Mancikam, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C3. D.O. No. 65 of 2014, dated 17.08.2014, passed by the second Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) read with Section 3(2)(a) of the Prevention of Black Marketing and Maintenance of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (Act 7 of 1980), in the Central Prison, Vellore, branding him as a 'Black Marketeer' and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr. I. Paul Noble Devakumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned detention order only on the ground that out of the three adverse cases against the petitioner in Crime No. 215 of 2013, Crime Nos. 39 and 46 of 2014, the petitioner was released on anticipatory bail in Crime No. 215 of 2013, on the file of the Civil Supplies CID, Vellore; whereas, no bail application was moved in the other two crime numbers. The Detaining Authority, in paragraph No. 5 of the detention order, while referring the anticipatory bail granted in favour of the petitioner in Crime No. 215 of 2013, omitted to refer about the other two cases, which shows the non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority and as such, the impugned detention order is liable to be quashed.

(2.) Per contra, Mr. C. Emallias, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the impugned detention order has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order of detention. However, he submitted that the other two adverse cases are omitted to be mentioned in the detention order, while referring the bail obtained by the petitioner in the other case.

(3.) We have given our careful and anxious consideration to the rival submissions put forward by the learned counsel on either side and thoroughly scanned through the impugned detention order and the entire materials available on record.