[Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.]
1. This petition seeks to challenge the detention order, dated 01.10.2017.
2. A perusal of the impugned detention order would show that there are two (2) adverse cases noticed qua the detenue. These being : Crime No.390 of 2017; and Crime No.443 of 2017. In both cases, to begin with, the detenue has been booked under Section 4(1)(aa) read with Section 4(1-A)(ii) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 (TNP Act), later on the offending provisions were altered to Section 4(1)(aa) of the TNP Act. 2.2. In so far as the subject case is concerned, the same is registered as Crime No.676 of 2017. In this case, the detenue has, once again, been booked under Section 4(1)(i), 4(1)(aaa) read with 4(1-A)(ii) of the TNP Act.
3. The record shows that the detenue was arrested on 01.09.2017.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. We have also perused the record.
5. According to us, the impugned order cannot be sustained for the following reasons :
(i) First, that the detenue was arrested on 01.09.2017. The impugned order was passed on 01.10.2017. Notice in this petition was issued on 24.10.2017, despite which, no counter affidavit has been filed by the State. Resultantly, the delay in passing the impugned order remains unexplained.
(ii) Second, a perusal of paragraph 5 of the impugned order shows that though, the detenue had moved bail applications in Crime No.676 of 2017, either no order was passed ; or, no orders were pressed for. The Detaining Authority, however, noticed the fact that the bail was granted to the detenue in Crime No.390 of 2017 and Crime No.443 of 2017.
(ii)(a) Furthermore, the Detaining Authority also notices the fact that in a similar case relating to 2015 (Crime No.376 of 2015), bail was granted.
(ii)(b) Based on these factors, the Detaining Authority, according to us, erroneously, reached a conclusion that there was a possibility of the detenue being enlarged on bail.
(ii)(c) In our opinion, the Detaining Authority has not applied its mind to material facts. Clearly, in Crime No.676 of 2017, on the date, when, the impugned order was passed, the detenue had not obtained any bail.
(ii)(d) The apprehension expressed by the Detaining Authority was, therefore, unfounded on the date of passing of the impugned order.
6. Thus, as indicated above, we are inclined to quash the impugned order. It is directed accordingly.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.No.37/2017-C2, dated 01.10.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Ramarajan, S/o.Kasi, aged about 27 years, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his detention is required, in connection with another case. Given the nature of the case, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
(ii)This order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
(iii)The Registry will dispatch a copy of this order to the petitioner as well To
1.The Principal Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thiruvannamalai District, Thiruvannamalai.
3.The Joint Secretary, Public Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Vellore.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Madras.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
And N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
gg H.C.P.No.1946 of 2017 22.12.2017