Sornamala v. State Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 06.08.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA H.C.P.NO.438 OF 2021 Sornamala .. Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu
3. The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu
4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai-66
5. The Inspector of Police Maraimalai Nagar Police Station Chengalpattu District .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent dated 25.01.2021 in BCDFGISSSV No.01/2021 against the petitioner's husband Vijay, aged 26 years, S/o.Nagaraj, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthil Vel For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by R.N.MANJULA, J.] The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz., Vijay, aged 26 years, S/o.Nagaraj. The detenu has been detained by the 2nd respondent by his order dated 25.01.2021 in BCDFGISSSV No.01/2021, holding him to be a "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the arrest intimation has not been properly translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page No.311 of the booklet, it is clear that the arrest intimation has not been properly translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.01/2021 dated 25.01.2021, passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside. The detenu viz., Vijay, aged 26 years, S/o.Nagaraj, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS III) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gya
To 1.
The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-9 2.
The Joint Secretary to Government Public, Law and Order Department Secretariat, Chennai-9 3.
The District Collector and District Magistrate Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 4.
The Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 5.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai-66 6.
The Inspector of Police Maraimalai Nagar Police Station Chengalpattu District 7.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.438 of 2021 JP-II(CO) PM(10/08/2021)