R.Kaviya, F/A.24 Years v. The Secretary To The

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 31.10.2018

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P. No. 1467 of 2018 R.Kaviya ... Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

... Respondents PRAYER:Habeas Corpus Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the order of the 2nd respondent herein in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.NO.50/2018, dated 15.07.2018 passed against the detenue namely RAJI, son of Murugan, aged about 32 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66 and set aside the same, consequently, directly the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.A.Murugavel For Respondent : Mr.Mohamed Riyaz

ORDER

[Order of the Court by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Raji, Son of Murugan, aged 32 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 15.07.2018 in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V No.50 / 2018 detaining her husband as "BOOTLEGGER", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous

activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slumgrabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following case:- S.No.

Police Station & Crime Section of Law No.

1.

PEW, Madurantakam Crime No.215 of 2017 4(1) (a) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 6 & 11 of Rectified Spirit Rules 2000 4(1) (aaa) Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 6 & 11 of Rectified Spirit Rules 2000 The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.255/2018 on the file of the Prohibition Enforcement Wing, Madurantakam for offences u/s 4(1) (aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of Rectified Spirit Rules 2000. The detention order has been passed by Second respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V No.50 /2018.

2.

PEW, Madurantakam Crime No.231 of 2018

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

5. The Grounds of Detention would reveal that 2 adverse cases have been registered against the detenu and a ground case was registered against him in Cr.No.255/2018 for the offences u/s 4(1) (aaa), 4(1-A) of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act r/w 7 & 11 of Rectified Spirit Rules 2000. Admittedly, the detenue has moved bail application in the ground case and the same is pending before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Chengalpattu, in Crl.M.P.No.2359/2018.

Therefore, the probability of release of the detenu imminently does not arise. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the detention order. Though the detaining authority has made reliance on similar case, in which an accused was granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied mechanically. Normally, bails are granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case

plea, cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V No.50 /2018, dated 15.07.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Raji, Son of Murugan, aged 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Deputy Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vsi2 To:

1.The Secretary to the Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, (Home) Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kancheepuram District, Kancheepuram.

3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal.

4.The Joint Secretary Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1467 of 2018 CSL/28.11.2018