Anandhabharathi v. The Secretary To The Government,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 07.08.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Anandhabharathi .. Petitioner Vs

1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate The office of District Collector and District Magistrate Kancheepuram District

3. The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai Page Nos.1/9

5. Inspector of Police Sunguvarchatram Police Station Kancheepuram District ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.08.2022 in Rc No.12777/2022/M6-D.O.No.34/2022 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son / detenu Dhanush, male, aged 23, son of Muralikrishnan before this Court and set him at liberty, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal. For Petitioner :

Mr.R.Dinesh Kumar for Mr.Sairam Ganapathi N For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed in the Admission Board on 15.02.2023, this Court made the following order:

Page Nos.2/9

Page Nos.3/9

Page Nos.4/9

2. The aforementioned order made in the Admission Board captures essential facts / features and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. Be that as it may, we are using the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order in this order also for the sake of convenience and clarity.

3. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned counsel projected the point that subjective satisfaction arrived at qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired. Elaborating on this submission, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 5 of the grounds of Page Nos.5/9

impugned preventive detention order, which reads as follows: '...In Sriperumbudur PS Cr.No.187/2018 u/s.294(b), 341, 323, 397, 506(ii), 307 IPC similar accused Thriu Dinesh @ Dineshkumar S/o.Sekar was released on bail through the District Sessions Court-II, Kancheepuram in C.M.P.No.1584/2018 dated 04.05.2018;

In the same way there is a real possibility for him of being released on bail in the ground case also.....'

4. The aforementioned Dinesh's case bail order has been furnished to the detenu as part of the grounds booklet and we had the benefit of perusing the same. Adverting to the Dinesh's case bail order in the grounds booklet, learned counsel submitted that one important alleged offence, namely Section 392 is not there in the Dinesh case and therefore, the comparison is bad.

5. Learned Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and said that several other offences are similar.

6. We carefully considered the rival submissions. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we find that Section 392 of IPC which pertains to punishment for robbery is very critical. To be noted, the term 'Robbery' is defined in Section 390 IPC. Therefore, on the facts and Page Nos.6/9

circumstances of the case on hand, we find that the comparison of Dinesh's case bail order with the ground case for arriving at the subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is bad and this has vitiated the impugned preventive detention order and left liable for being dislodged.

7. Ergo, the sequitur is captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 23.08.2022 bearing reference Rc.No.12777/2022/M6D.O.No.34/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Dhanush, male, aged 23 years, son of Thiru.Muralikrishnan 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.) 07.08.2023 Index : No gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal Page Nos.7/9

To

1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate The office of District Collector and District Magistrate Kancheepuram District

3. The Superintendent of Police Kancheepuram District Kancheepuram

4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai

5. The Inspector of Police Sunguvarchatram Police Station Kancheepuram District 6.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court Chennai Page Nos.8/9

M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., gpa 07.08.2023 Page Nos.9/9