Lakshmi v. The State Rep By Its,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR H.C.P.No.205 of 2025 Lakshmi ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State Represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Chennai 600 003 3.The Inspector of Police H4, Korukkupet Police Station Chennai-13 4.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal ... Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ, call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 12.09.2024 in No.944/BCDFGISSSV/2024 against the petitioner's son, the Deenu, Raja @ Lakshman, male aged about 23 years, Son of Rajkumar, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aide the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.P.Ponbalaji For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by M.Sylvester John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
The order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.944/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The impugned Detention order has been issued based on three adverse
cases. It is not in dispute that the ground case is relatable to personal motive between the detenu and the other group. Such cases involving personal motive or vengeance cannot be said to affect the public order. The likelihood of breaching public order being the element to be considered for invoking the Act 14 of 1982. All other cases can be dealt with under the ordinary law.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the cases registered are relating to group dispute.
5. That being so, the respondents shall dealt with cases by conducting investigation and filing charge sheets. If at all, bail is granted, the Police authorities may file a petition for cancellation of bail or imposing conditions. However, the Preventive Detention law may not be required in such nature of cases as there is no element of likelihood of causing breach of public order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the detention order.
6.Accordingly, the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.944/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 12.09.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenue, namely, Raja @ Lakshman,
S/o.Rajkumar, male, aged about 23 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 18.02.2025 kas Index :
Yes/No :
Yes/No To 1.Additional Chief Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Chennai 600 003 3.The Inspector of Police H4, Korukkupet Police Station Chennai-13 4.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal 5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras Chennai 600 104s M.S.RAMESH, J.
N.SENTHILKUMAR , J.
kas
H.C.P.No.205 of 2025 18.02.2025