(Order of the Court was made by M.CHOCKALINGAM, J.) This petition challenges an order of the first respondent in No.1/N.S.A./2008 dated 29.5.2008 whereby the son of the petitioner herein by name Rampal was detained under the provisions of the National Security Act.
2.The Court perused the order under challenge and also other available materials. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents.
3.Two grounds on which the order is challenged are as follows.
(a) Firstly, a bail application was filed in Crl.M.P.No.852 of 2008 before the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, and the same was dismissed on 26.5.2008; but, the order came to be passed on 29.5.2008. On that date, originally there was an order of dismissal, and not even a bail application was pending that day. But the authority has pointed out in its order that there was a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. It was only an apprehension without any material, and it was only prejudging the situation.
(b) Secondly, as far as the dismissal order made by the II Additional Sessions Court in Crl.M.P.No.852/2008 is concerned, no copy of the order was served upon the detenu. But only a copy of the endorsement made by the Public Prosecutor's Office has been furnished. It would not satisfy the need. Under the circumstances, the order has got to be set aside.
4.The Court heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above contentions.
5.It is not in controversy that the order under challenge came to be passed on 29.5.2008. From the available materials, it could be seen that only one case was registered against him in Crime No.368/2008 by Tirunelveli Bridge Police Station under
Sections 294(b),506(ii) and
307 IPC and Sec.3(i)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. It could also be seen that it was treated as adverse case and also ground case. No more case was brought to the notice of the authority. As far as the present case was concerned, he moved for bail in Crl.M.P.No.852/2008 before the II Additional Sessions Court, Tirunelveli, and an order came to be passed on 26.5.2008 dismissing the application. Thus on the date when the impugned order came to be passed i.e., 29.5.2008, there was not even a bail application pending. But the authority has mentioned "real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail". It would be indicative of the apprehension made in the mind of the authority and without any basis or reasons. Apart from that, it is only prejudging the situation.
6.As far as the second contention is concerned, though not a copy of the order of dismissal was served, what was served upon him was an endorsement of the Public Prosecutor's Office as to the dismissal. Once the matter has been brought to the notice of the detenu, this cannot, in the opinion of the Court, be a ground. But, as stated above, the first ground would suffice to set aside the order.
7.Accordingly, this habeas corpus petition is allowed setting aside the order of the first respondent. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
nsv
1.State represented by Office of the Commissioner of Police Tirunelveli City Tirunelveli District
2.Secretary to Government Public (Law and Order-F) Department Government of Tamil Nadu Secretariat, Chennai 9.
3.Secretary to Government Government of India Ministry of Home Affairs (Department of Internal Security) North Block, New Delhi
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor Madurai Bench of Madras High Court Madurai