L JESSIE FATHIMA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent herein clamped an order of detention as against the detenu husband of the petitioner, as the said authority arrived at the subjective satisfaction that the said detenu is a Goonda and he has to be detained under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Officers, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982). 2.1 THE order of detention dated 14.6.2007 came to be passed by the first respondent on the basis of several complaints received by persons alleging that the detenu had cheated them under the guise of offering construction work and collected huge money to the tune of Rs.4 Crores as Security deposit. THE detenu was working as a Personal Assistant to Thiru Job Saravanan, who started a Trust in the name of M/s.International Calvary Mission Trust, the aim of the trust being to construct dwelling houses for the poor public free of cost by getting foreign aids. A case was registered against the detenu on the file of CBCID Metro Wing in Crime No.4 of 2007 under Section 406 and 420 I.P.C. based on the complaint of one S.P.Raja and another case was registered in Crime No.5 of 2007 on the file of CBCID Metro Wing for the offences punishable under Section 341, 323 ,307, 406, 420 and 506(2) I.P.C. based on the complaint of one Kanthasamy. During the course of the investigation, the detenu was arrested and remanded in Crime No.4 of 2007. 2.2 THE detaining authority having satisfied that the detenu is habitually committing crimes and is acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order ordered his detention as Goonda. 2.3 Aggrieved by the above said order of detention dated 14.6.2007, the wife of the detenu has preferred this habeas corpus petition for issue of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in Memo No.237/BDFGISSV/2007 on the file of the first respondent, to quash the detention order dated 14.6.2007 and to direct the production of the detenu, presently detained at the Central Prision, Puzhal under Act14 of 1982, before this Court and to set him at liberty. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.R.Elango, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. 4. THE main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that even though in the grounds of detention it has been stated that the detenu filed bail application Crl.M.P.No.4634 of 2007 in Crime Branch CID Metro Wing Cr.No.5 of 2007 and the same was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, copies of the said documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not furnished to the detenu and thereby he was deprived of making an effective representation objecting the detention and therefore, the order of detention is vitiated. 5. In the grounds of detention, the detaining authority, to substantiate that the detenu was under the lawful judicial custody at the time of passing of the impugned order of detention, observed that the detenu is in remand in CBCID Metro Wing Crime Nos.4 and 5 of 2007 and he has moved bail application before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Egmore Chennai; that bail application Crl.M.P.No.966 of 2007 for CBCID Metro Wing Crime No.4 of 2007 is pending and in similar cases bails are granted; and that bail application Crl.M.P.No.4634 of 2007 in Crime Branch CID Metro Wing Cr.No.5 of 2007 was dismissed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai. However, the detaining authority had neither chosen to supply the copy of the bail application filed by the detenu nor the order passed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.4634 of 2007 in Crime Branch CID Metro Wing Cr.No.5 of 2007. In our considered opinion, to the extent indicated above, the order of detention is vitiated and the therefore, the same has to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. This habeas corpus petition is allowed. THE detenu is directed to be set at liberty unless he is required in connection with any other case. No costs.