High Court of Madras
Case Law Search
John Fredrick Alexander v. State of Tamil Nadu - HCP.No.303 of 2005  RD-TN 428 (28 June 2005)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.SATHASIVAM
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR.RAMALINGAM
HCP.No.303 of 2005
John Fredrick Alexander ... Petitioner -Vs-
1. State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate
and District Collector,
Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.Abudu Kumar Rajarathinam, Govt. Advocate (Crl. Side)
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records related to petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 24.01.2005 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings BDFGISV No.18 of 2005, quash the the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner namely John Fredrick Alexander before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty from detention.
:O R D E R
(Order of the Court was made by P.SATHASIVAM, J.) The petitioner, who was detained as 'Goonda', as contemplated under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), by the impugned proceedings dated 24.01.2005, challenges the same in this petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner, after taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, at the foremost submitted that in the absence of imminent possibility or likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, the decision of the Detaining Authority, detaining him under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, cannot be sustained.
3. In the light of the above submission, we have perused the grounds of detention, particularly paragraph No.5 (i) & (ii). Though the Detaining Authority was having necessary knowledge about the fact that the detenu was in remand, after finding that his earlier bail applications were dismissed, without necessary material, he has arrived at the conclusion that " ..... There is a possibility of him filing another bail application and being enlarged on bail. ..." The said conclusion is not in consonance with the dictum laid down in various decisions by the Supreme Court as well as this Court, vide Kamarunnissa vs. Union of India (1991 (1) SCC 128 : 1991 SCC (Cri) 88); Rivadeneyta Ricardo Augustin v. Government of Delhi (1994 SCC (Cri) 354) & Order of this Court dated 27.06.2005 made in HCP No.284 of 2005. On this ground, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
4. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned order of detention is set aside. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith from the custody unless he is required in some other case or cause.
1. Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Chennai. (In duplicate for communication to detenu) 4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.