Sowmiya v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.07.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL Sowmiya W/o.Ajithkumar .. Petitioner / Wife of Detenue Vs.
1.State of Tamilnadu, Rep. by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Chennai.
... Respondents Page Nos.1/14
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 in C.M.P.No.5/Goonda/Salem City/2023 dated 25.01.2023 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, Ajithkumar aged about 27 years S/o.Palanivel the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Salem before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.Aneesh Vinayak for Mr.M.Subash For Respondents : Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] This order will now dispose of the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity].
2. When the captioned HCP was listed in the admission board on 23.03.2023, the following order was made by this Court. Page Nos.2/14
'Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 03.03.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 25.01.2023 bearing reference C.M.P No.5/Goonda/Salem City/2023 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. To be noted, wife of the detenu is the petitioner. 3.Mr.M.Subash, learned counsel on record for habeas corpus petitioner is before us. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397 and 506(ii) of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity] in Crime No.833 of 2022 on the file of Fairlands Police Station.
4. The aforementioned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' under Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forestoffenders, 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].
5. The detention order has been assailed inter alia on the ground that the grounds of detention served on the detenu was not properly translated in Tamil, which prevented the detenu from making an effective representation.
Page Nos.3/14
6. Prima facie case made out for admission. Admit. Issue Rule nisi returnable by four weeks.
7.
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, State of Tamil Nadu accepts notice for all respondents. List the captioned Habeas Corpus Petition accordingly.'
3. The aforementioned order / proceedings shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this order. This means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the earlier order dated 23.03.2023 will continue to be used in the instant order also.
4. There are three adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.833 of 2022 on the file of Fairlands Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392, 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix Page Nos.4/14
or be detained further by facts.
5. Mr.E.Aneesh Vinayak, 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.
6. When the captioned HCP was taken up for final hearing, both sides submitted that co-accused in the ground case was also clamped with similar preventive detention order. That was challenged in this Court by way of H.C.P.No.363 of 2023 and the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 10.07.2023. Both sides further submitted that the point on which the preventive detention order clamped on the co-accused was set aside, is available for the detenu in the case on hand also.
7. Aforementioned order dated 10.07.2023 in H.C.P.No.363 of 2023 reads as follows:
Page Nos.5/14
Page Nos.6/14
Page Nos.7/14
Page Nos.8/14
Page Nos.9/14
Page Nos.10/14
Page Nos.11/14
Page Nos.12/14
8. As there is no disputation that the aforementioned point is available for the detenu in the case on hand also, captioned HCP also is allowed on the same point.
9. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 25.01.2023 bearing reference C.M.P.No.5/Goonda/Salem City/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ajithkumar, aged 27 years, son of Thiru.Palanivel 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.) 24.07.2023 Index : Yes Speaking order rsi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
Page Nos.13/14
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL , J.
rsi To 1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City Police, Salem.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Inspector of Police, Fairlands Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai 24.07.2023 Page Nos.14/14