Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAVI @ RAVIRAJAN versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

High Court of Madras

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ravi @ Ravirajan v. State of Tamil Nadu - H.C.P. No. 448 of 2005 [2005] RD-TN 481 (19 July 2005)



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated: 19/07/2005

Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. SATHASIVAM

and

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice AR. RAMALINGAM

H.C.P. No. 448 of 2005

Ravi @ Ravirajan,

S/o. Gopal,

7, Ambedkar Street,

Nemilicheri, Tambaram Tlaluk,

Kancheepuram District. .. Petitioner.

-Vs-

1. State of Tamil Nadu,

represented by its Secretary,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. District Magistrate &

District Collector,

Kancheepuram District,

Kancheepuram. .. Respondents.

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the petitioner namely Ravi @ Ravirajan T.P.D.A.No. 55 24 now confined in Central Prison, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith from detention and call for the records pertaining to the passing of the order of detention by the second respondent herein in detention order B.D.F.G.I.S.No.61/2004 dated 30-7-2004 and quash the same. For petitioner:- Mr. S. Govindarajan.

For respondents:- Mr. Abudukumar Rajarathinam, Govt., Advocate (Criminal Side).

:ORDER



(Order of Court was made by P. Sathasivam, J.,) The petitioner, who was detained as "Goonda" under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 by the impugned proceedings dated 30-7-2004 , challenges the same in this petition.

2. After taking us through the grounds of detention and all other connected materials, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in view of the fact that at the time of the detention order, the petitioner was a remand prisoner and no application for bail was filed. He also submits that in the absence of any application for bail, the imminent possibility of coming out on bail does not arise. Hence, the detaining authority has not considered this vital aspect. In order to appreciate the said contention, it is useful to refer the following statement of fact made in para 5 (ii) of the grounds of detention:

"5(ii) I am aware that Thiru Ravi alias Ravirajan has been remanded to judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 10-07-2004. He was ordered to be remanded up to 23-07-2004. He is now lodged in Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner. His remand period has been extended upto 06-08-2004. He has not filed any bail application so far. But there is a possibility of him filing a bail application and being enlarged on bail by the criminal court..."

It is clear from the above that the petitioner, namely, detenu had been in judicial custody by the Judicial Magistrate, Alandur on 10-07-2 004 and subsequently remanded upto 23-07-2004 and lodged in Central Prison, Chennai as a remand prisoner. Thereafter, his remand had been extended upto 6-8-2004. It also shows that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu has not filed any bail application till the date of passing of the detention order. In such a circumstance, as held by this Court as well as the Apex Court in many number of cases that if there is no "imminent possibility" or likely hood of filing bail application or if bail application was filed, there is no imminent possibility or likelihood of coming out on bail, the detention order passed by the detaining authority cannot be sustained. In other words, the detaining authority has not taken note of the real urgency which necessitated to detain him (detenu) under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. In view of this infirmity in arriving at a subjective satisfaction before passing the order of detention, this Court has no other option except to interfere with the order of detention.

3. Under these circumstances, the impugned order of detention dated 30-7-2004 is set aside. Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu-Ravi @ Ravirajan is directed to be released and set at liberty forthwith unless his detention is required for any other cause.

R.B.

To:-

1. The Secretary,

Prohibition and Excise Department,

Fort St. George, Chennai-9.

2. District Magistrate &

District Collector,

Kancheepuram District,

Kancheepuram.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

4. The Joint Secretary,

Public (Law and Order) Department,

Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-9.

5. The Superintendent,

Central Prison, Chennai.




Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.