Banumathi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 19.12.2022 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.No.750 of 2022 Banumathi W/o.Marudhai ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

3.The Inspector of Police, J-10, Chemmancherry Police Station, Chennai.

4.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

... Respondents 1/6

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 12.04.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu Manikandan @ Mani @ Velachery Karuppa S/o.Marudhai, aged about 23 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents :

Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor *****

O R D E R

[Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Manikandan @ Mani @ Velachery Karuppa S/o.Marudhai, aged about 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 12.04.2022, holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) 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 Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority. 2/6

3. Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention. According to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the detaining authority has stated, in page No.41 of the Booklet furnished to the detenu, that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the sister of the detenu. However, there is no material to substantiate the service of arrest intimation stated to have been made to the sister of the detenu. Therefore, it is stated that the detenu was deprived of making an effective representation in the absence of furnishing of full particulars by the detaining authority. Hence, it is stated that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order in total non-application of mind.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the detenue was arrested on 21.03.2022 and the investigation was completed and final report was filed on 17.05.2022, on time. It was further submitted that the Final Report was taken on file by the Judicial Magistrate II, Alandur and the case is now pending in S.C.No.43 of 2022 3/6

and the case is now at the stage of examination of the Investigation Officer. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor further submitted that the arrest of the detenu has been intimated to the sister of the detenu.

5. We find that there are no material particulars to substantiate the same. This Court has also taken the similar view in such cases that the detention order cannot be sustained.

6. As evidenced from the document in page No.41 of the Booklet furnished to us, a mere endorsement is made by the authorities to the effect that the arrest intimation has been informed to the sister of the detenu, but, no materials have been furnished to substantiate that the said intimation was sent through Thapal or Registered post or as per the procedure laid down. Therefore, non-furnishing of details given to the sister of the detenu would amount to deprivation of the right of the detenu to make an effective representation and the same would vitiate the order of detention and the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

4/6

7. It is a trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal. The impugned detention order is therefore liable to be quashed. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.53/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 12.04.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Manikandan @ Mani @ Velachery Karuppa S/o.Marudhai, aged about 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[PNP, J.] [NAV, J.] 19.12.2022 Index: Yes/No gm 5/6

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

gm To 1.The Judicial Magistrate II, Alandur.

2.The Secretary to Government, Department of Prohibition and Excise (Home), Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

3.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Sholinganallur, Chennai - 600 119.

4.The Inspector of Police, J-10, Chemmancherry Police Station, Chennai.

5.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai.

6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.750 of 2022 19.12.2022 6/6