S.Indhra v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR S.Indhra W/o.Siva ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai-600 066.
..
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 relating to the detenu's detention order passed by the 2nd respondent BCDFGISSSV No.33/2022 dated 08.03.2022 and set aside the same and produce the detenu Page Nos.1/16
Vijay, male aged about 25, Son of Siva, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Dhanasekar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity] has been filed in this Court on 04.04.2022 assailing a 'detention order dated 08.03.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.33/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity] made by the second respondent i.e., 'jurisdictional Commissioner of Police' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Suffice to say that the impugned detention order has been made on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Page Nos.2/16
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].
3. It is not necessary to delve into facts as both learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor submit in one voice that two co-detenus namely, Mr.Santhosh @ Mandai Santhosh, Son of Shanmugampillai and Mr.Tamilarasan @ Mottai, Son of Kumar who are coaccused in the ground case had moved HCP Nos.570 of 2022 and 576 of 2022 respectively and both HCPs were allowed by Hon'ble predecessor Benches by orders dated 19.12.2022 and 14.11.2022 respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor also submit without any disputation or disagreement that the impugned detention orders in the instant case and in the aforementioned two HCPs are ad verbatim the same. It is also submitted that the trajectory the matters have taken is also the same.
4. We find that I HCP (HCP No.570 of 2022) in the case of Page Nos.3/16
Mr.Santhosh @ Mandai Santhosh, Son of Shanmugampillai has been allowed on the point that a case which has been relied on for coming to the conclusion (subjective satisfaction) that there is imminent possibility of detenu being enlarged on bail is not a similar case and II HCP (HCP No.576 of 2022) which pertains to Mr.Tamilarasan @ Mottai, Son of Kumar, which has been allowed on the point of delay in considering the representation of the detenu. There is no disagreement that both these points are available in the case on hand as the detention orders are ad verbatim the same and the trajectory the matters have taken is also the same. One minor difference is delay in considering the representation. There is one day difference in number of days delay. Therefore, captioned HCP should also inevitably be disposed of in a similar manner. We deem it appropriate to extract and reproduce the aforementioned two orders of Hon'ble predecessor Bench (HCP Nos.570 and 576 of 2022) and scanned reproduction of the same are as follows:
Page Nos.4/16
Page Nos.5/16
Page Nos.6/16
Page Nos.7/16
Page Nos.8/16
Page Nos.9/16
Page Nos.10/16
Page Nos.11/16
Page Nos.12/16
Page Nos.13/16
Page Nos.14/16
5. In the light of the submission made by learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor without any disputation or contestation which has been already alluded to supra, captioned HCP is allowed.
6. Impugned detention order dated 08.03.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.33/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Mr.Vijay, Son of Siva, is directed to set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/s.
7. Captioned HCP ordered on the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 01.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
Page Nos.15/16
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai-600 066.
4.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
01.02.2023 Page Nos.16/16