Y.Yasmin v. State Rep.By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.06.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Y.Yasmin .. Petitioner / Sister of the detenu Vs.

1. State of Tamil Nadu The Secretary Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Office of the Commissioner of Police Sholinganallur Chennai - 600 119

3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police T-17 Perumbakkam Police Station Perumbakkam Chennai ... Respondents Page Nos.1/10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records relating to the detention order Memo No.198/BBCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 17.11.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Farook Sheikh @ Farook, son of Yusuf Sheik, male, aged 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Saranraj For Respondents :

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor

O R D E R

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the matter came up for admission on 07.03.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.2/10

Page Nos.3/10

Page Nos.4/10

Page Nos.5/10

2. Mr.S.Saranraj, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

3. Though in the admission board, the point that Detaining Authority had not properly informed the family members about the detention was projected, in the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive order on the ground that subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority qua imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired as the subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by comparing the case on hand with another case which is completely dissimilar as in the other case the prosecutor himself had submitted that there is no bad antecedents for the petitioner thereat.

4. Elaborating on the above point, adverting to the impugned preventive detention order, learned counsel submitted that the aforementioned subjective satisfaction has been arrived at by the Detaining Authority by comparing the ground case with a bail order dated 18.10.2019 Page Nos.6/10

in Crl.M.P.No.21605/2019 vide Crime No.145 of 2018 on the file of G-3 Kilpauk Police Station ('Arun @ Arunkumar's case' for the sake of convenience). Arun @ Arunkumar'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. A careful perusal of Arun @ Arunkumar's case and more particularly paragraph 4 thereat, makes it clear that there being no previous case against Arun @ Arunkumar has weighed in the mind of the learned Sessions Judge in gravitating towards exercising discretion in favour of grant of bail. In complete contradistinction, in the case on hand there are two adverse cases even according to the impugned preventive detention order.

5. Learned Prosecutor in his submission to the contrary, argued that Arun @ Arunkumar's case and the ground case are comparable as the offences are broadly akin to each other. We are unable to agree with the learned Prosecutor as the parameters and determinants for grant of discretionary relief of bail have to be compared with another case where the parameters and determinants are also comparable.

6. In the case on hand, we find Arun @ Arunkumar's case and ground Page Nos.7/10

case are dissimilar owing to reasons delineated supra. This means that the aforementioned subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority is impaired and therefore the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

7. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 17.11.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.198 of 2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Farook Sheikh @ Farook, aged 24, son of Thiru.Yusuf Sheikh, 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.) 14.06.2023 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal To Page Nos.8/10

1. The Secretary Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Office of the Commissioner of Police Sholinganallur Chennai - 600 119

3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police T-17 Perumbakkam Police Station Perumbakkam Chennai

5. The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.9/10

M.SUNDAR, J.

and R.SAKTHIVEL , J.

gpa 14.06.2023 Page Nos.10/10