K.Bakiyavathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL K.Bakiyavathi .. Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District Erode
3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District Erode
4. The Inspector of Police Puliyampatti Police Station Puliyampatti Page Nos.1/10
Erode District
5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore District .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order dated 16.12.2022 made in detention order in Cr.M.P.No.41/Goonda/2022-C1 passed by the 2nd respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Thiru.Saravanan @ Military Saravanan, male aged 45 years, son of Late Krishnasamy, who has been detained in Central Prison, Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Murugabharathi for Mr.SP.Yuvaraj For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by mother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 16.12.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.41/Goonda/2022-C1 [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be Page Nos.2/10
noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982. 3.There is one adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.370 of 2022 on the file of Puliyampatti Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 362, 342 and 394 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' altered to Sections 364, 364(A), 395 read with 397 and 368 of IPC and again altered to Sections 364, 364(A), 395 read with 397 and 368 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled caste / Page Nos.3/10
Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 2015. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.R.Murugabharathi, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us. 5.
In the final hearing Board, Mr.R.Murugabharathi, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for the petitioner projected his argument qua his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point though several grounds have been raised /urged in the support affidavit.
One point that was canvassed in the final hearing board turns on drastic difference in dates and crime number in the English and Tamil versions of remand extension orders at pages 218 and 219 of the grounds booklet served on the detenu. A scanned reproduction of these two pages is as follows:
Page Nos.4/10
Page Nos.5/10
Page Nos.6/10
6. Learned counsel points out that 23.11.2022 date in the English version is shown as 22.11.2022 in the Tamil version, Crime No.370 of 2022 in the English version has been shown as Crime No.370 of 2018 in the Tamil version and further extension order date 24.11.2022 has been wrongly shown as 24.12.2022 in the Tamil version.
7. Learned counsel submitted that the aforementioned confusion is drastic and that it can baffle anybody. This puts the petitioner at a disadvantage qua making an effective representation against impugned preventive detention order. As the aforesaid point turns heavily on records, learned Prosecutor really has little say i.e., no say.
8. In the light of the narrative thus far, this Bench has no difficulty in accepting the argument that the detenu's sacrosanct right to make an effective representation against the impugned preventive detention order has been impaired. To be noted, this sacrosanct / sanctus right is a constitutional safeguard ingrained in Article 22(5) of Constitution of India. The sequitur is, impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.
Page Nos.7/10
9. Ergo, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 16.12.2022 bearing reference Cr.M.P.No.41/Goonda/2022-C1 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Saravanan alias Military Saravanan, aged 45 years, son of Thiru.Krishnasamy (late) is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 17.07.2023 Index : Yes gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
Page Nos.8/10
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009.
2. The District Magistrate and District Collector Erode District Erode
3. The Superintendent of Police Erode District Erode
4. The Inspector of Police Puliyampatti Police Station Puliyampatti Erode District
5. The Superintendent Central Prison, Coimbatore Coimbatore District 6.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai Page Nos.9/10
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., gpa 17.07.2023 Page Nos.10/10