Nagapushpa v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.No.633 of 2023 Nagapushpa .. Petitioner Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. By Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 8.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai.
.. 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 detention order BCDFGISSSV No.46/2023 dated 20.02.2023 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Sakthivel, S/o. (late) Page Nos.1/14
Srinivasan, aged about 22 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Ms.M.Kruthika for Mr.K.Nivesh Kumar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' (hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of convenience and clarity) was listed in the Admission Board on 20.04.2023, the following order was made: '
H.C.P.No.633 of 2023 M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., (Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,) Captioned Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed in this Court on 28.03.2023 inter alia assailing a detention order dated 20.02.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.46/2023 made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the Sponsoring Authority.
2. Mother of detenu is the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that ground case qua the detenu is for alleged offences under Section 302 Page Nos.2/14
of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] subsequently, altered into Sections 147, 148, 342, 302, 506(ii) read with 149 of IPC in Crime No.31 of 2023 on the file of J-1 Saidapet 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, Sandoffenders, 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 some of the pages in the grounds booklet furnished to the detenu are illegible which prevented the detenu from making an effective representation.
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. '
2. The aforementioned Admission Board captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and therefore, we are not setting out the same again. However, short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant order also for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity.
3. Ms.M.Kruthika, learned counsel representing the counsel on Page Nos.3/14
record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for all the respondents are before us.
4. To be noted, 'order dated 20.02.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.46/2023' made by second respondent / Detaining Authority shall in this order be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity.
5. Both sides submitted without any contestation that in the ground case (to be noted, the impugned preventive detention order in the captioned matter is predicated on one ground case i.e., solitary case and that solitary case constitutes the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order), there was another accused by name Ashok Kumar, son of Kuppusamy and the preventive detention order was challenged by his mother by way of H.C.P. No. 688 of 2023 and this HCP was allowed by this Court in and by an order dated 07.08.2023. A scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: Page Nos.4/14
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
6. There is also no disputation that the point on which Ashok Kumar's (co-accused) preventive detention order was set aside/interfered with is available qua impugned preventive detention order in the captioned matter also. This reminds us of the age old adage 'Sauce to Goose is sauce to Gander too'. This means that the impugned preventive detention order also deserves to be dislodged.
7. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 20.02.2023 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.46/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sakthivel, aged 22 years, Son of (late) Thiru.Srinivasan, 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.) 14.08.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. Page Nos.12/14
To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -9.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai - 8.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4.The Inspector of Police, Saidapet Police Station, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.13/14
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., mmi H.C.P.No.633 of 2023 14.08.2023 Page Nos.14/14