(Order of the Court was made by RAJIV SHAKDHER, J)
1. This is a petition which seeks to challenge the detention order dated 16.09.2017. The subject case, evidently, is the only case registered against the detenue. This case is numbered as Cr.No.690 of 2017.
2. The detenue has been booked insofar as this case is concerned, under Sections 363, 147, 148, 364, 365, 302 r/w 120(b) and 201 of the I.P.C. The detenue has been in custody since 24.06.2017.
3. A perusal of the impugned order would show that though the detenue moved for bail before the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, twice, on both occasions the bail petitions were dismissed. Evidently, the dismissal orders were passed on 14.07.2017 and 17.08.2017.
3.1. The impugned order also adverts to the fact that the detenue had moved bail petition (Crl.O.P.No.18559/2017) before this Court, which was pending on the date of impugned order (16.09.2017) was passed.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that there has been a total non application of mind. As on that date, the bail petition stood already dismissed. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner says that illegible copies of documents have been furnished to the detenue. For this, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the page Nos.597 and 598 of the paper book.
5. We have perused and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Additional Public Public Prosecutor. According to us, the impugned order deserves to be quashed for the following reasons:
(i) There has been a delay in passing the detention order. The detention order was passed on 16.09.2017, whereas, the detenue was taken into custody on 24.06.2017.
(ii) The reasoning articulated by the detaining authority in the impugned order that the detenue was likely to be enlarged on bail is not based on cogent material. Concededly, the two bail petitions filed by the detenue before the Principal Sessions court on 14.07.2017 and 17.08.2017 were dismissed. Insofar as the bail petition which was moved in this Court, the same was also dismissed on 12.09.2017 (Crl.O.P.No.18559/2017). Strangely, the detaining authority in the impugned order notes that this bail petition was pending on the date when the impugned order was passed. Thus, the conclusion reached by the detaining authority that there was real and imminent possibility of the detenue being enlarged on bail, in our view, is flawed.
6. This apart, the petitioner's contention that illegible copies of some documents (Pages 597 and 598) were supplied is also correct.
6.1. We may also note, notice in this petition was issued on 04.10.2017, despite which, no counter affidavit has been filed. Thus, assertions made in the petition have remain uncontroverted.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we are inclined to quash the impugned order. It is directed accordingly.
8. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The Order of detention in No.565/BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 16.09.2017, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenue, namely, Thiru. Yusuf, male, aged 46 S/o Jaffar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with another case.
9. Consequently, this order will be communicated to the concerned Jail Superintendent by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
2.Order will be communicated to Jail Superintendent, Central Prison, Kalapet, Puducherry, by the Registrar General of this Court via Fax.
To
1. The Secretary to Govt, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai-7.
3. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public, Law and Order Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-600066
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
and N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
ggs H.C.P.No.1822 of 2017 13.11.2017