Teacher goundas quashed The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.No.1096 of 2021 R.Sudha .. Petitioner Vs. 1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 07.01.2022
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and
The Honourable Ms. Justice R.N.MANJULA
H.C.P.No.1096 of 2021
R.Sudha .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section)
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station,
Ashok Nagar, Chennai. .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order in BCDFGISSSV No.173/2021 dated 24.06.2021 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner’s husband Rajagopalan, S/o.Govindaraj, aged about 59 years, the detenu, now confined in the Central Prison II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set the petitioner’s husband Rajagopalan, S/o.Govindaraj, aged about 59 years, the detenu herein at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Suresh
For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj,
Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu Rajagopalan, S/o.Govindaraj, aged about 59 years. The detenu has been detained
by the first respondent by his order in Memo BCDFGISSSV No.173/2021 dated 24.06.2021, holding him to be a “Sexual Offender”, as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus
Petition.
- We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
- Though many grounds have been raised in the petition,
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention and violation of Section 8 of Act 14 of 1982.
- The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detention order has been clamped based on a solitary case in Cr.No.5 of 2021 that was registered on 24.05.2021 on the complaint given by “X”, who is working as “Y”, in which, she has stated that five years ago, the detenu, who was her Commerce teacher, had made sexist remarks towards her; on these allegations, the detenu was arrested on 25.05.2021 and the detention order was passed on 24.06.2021. He further submitted that the police have even filed the charge sheet in Cr.No.5 of 2021 for the offence under Section 12 of the POCSO Act for which the maximum punishment is only 3 years, whereas, the detenu has been in incarceration for the last seven months based on the grounds that are stale; the trial Court has granted regular bail to the detenu; there is no basis for the Detaining Authority to come to the conclusion that the detenu had misbehaved during online classes, because, online classes started only after the COVID-19 pandemic and not five years ago when the de facto complainant was the detenu’s student; the grounds of detention were served belatedly as could be seen from the correction in the date; and similar bail order particulars
have not been mentioned.
- The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly and vehemently opposed the habeas corpus petition on the basis of the counter affidavit filed by the State and submitted that four students have come forward and given Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements that the
detenu had misbehaved during online classes now.
- This Court gave its anxious consideration to the grounds
raised in the petition, the counter affidavit of the State and the rival submissions made across the Bar.
- Admittedly, the detention order in this case has been
passed based on a solitary case in Cr.No.5 of 2021 in which “X”, aged above 20 years, who is working as “Y”, has stated that during 2015-2016, the detenu, who was her Commerce teacher, had made sexist remarks on various occasions. Thus, it is obvious that the ground case incident is said to have occurred five years ago and on this stale ground without a live link, the detention order has been passed, which shows non-application of mind. The detention order also speaks about the misbehavior of the detenu during online classes, to support which, in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit of the State, it
is stated as under:
“12. After knowing the complaint filed by “X”, 4 students (3 girls and one boy) aged 21 years and above came forward and have given statements u/s 164 Cr.P.C. before the learned XXIII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, against Thiru. Rajagopal.”
- A reading of the above averment shows that all the 4 students are 21 years and above like “X” and must have obviously passed out of the school and could not have attended the online classes in 2020-2021. That apart, the reference to the four students giving Section 164 Cr.P.C. statements finds no place in the grounds of detention. Their names have also not been given. Hence, the detention order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as well for taking
into consideration extraneous materials.
- Further, in ground ‘b’, the petitioner has averred as follows:
“b.….. That apart, there is no material to infer that in similar cases, bail was granted by the Hon’ble Court.”
It is pertinent to note that the grounds of detention are silent on the aforesaid aspect, whereas, in paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it is
stated as follows:
“6. This clearly and cogently shows that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu being released on bail at the time of disposal of the bail application, since in a similar case, bail was granted to the accused concerned in the similar case by the Court for the similar offence.”
- When the counter affidavit asserts that in a similar case, bail was granted to the accused concerned, the grounds of detention are totally silent on that aspect, which also shows that extraneous materials not made available to the detenu have been taken into
consideration.
- Lastly, in ground ‘n’, it has been stated as follows:
“n. In the grounds of detention, last page, the date and time of serving the grounds of detention have been corrected and there is overwriting thereby confirm that the grounds of detention have not been served on the date and time as mentioned therein.”
- On a perusal of the original grounds of detention, it is seen that there are corrections in the date, i.e., 28.06.2021, both in the English version as well in the Tamil version, which is manifestly visible to the naked eyes. Therefore , there is sufficient force in the stand of
the detenu that the grounds of detention were not served on him within the time prescribed under Section 8 of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.173/2021 dated 24.06.2021, passed by the first respondent is set aside. The detenu,
viz.,Rajagopalan, S/o.Govindaraj, aged about 59 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection
with any other case.
(P.N.P.,J.) (R.N.M.,J.)
07.01.2022
nsd
To
1.The Secretary,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section)
Vepery,
Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Prisons,
Central Prison-II, Puzhal,
Chennai-600 066.
4.The Inspector of Police,
W-26, All Women Police Station, Ashok Nagar, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J. and R.N.MANJULA, J.
nsd/cad H.C.P.No.1096 of 2021
01.02.2022
