Sankar v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By Its Secretary

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 28.06.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.M.SUNDRESH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.No.784 of 2019 Shankar .. Petitioner Vs

1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Commissioner's Office, Vepery Chennai - 600 007.

.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, call for the records of the detention order No.105/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 25.02.2019 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu Pravin @ Pravin Kumar, aged 23 years, S/o. Sankar, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner ..

Mr.L.Infant Dinesh For Respondents ..

Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj, Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.M.SUNDRESH, J.) The petitioner is the father of the detenu and challenge is made to the order of detention made in 105/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 25.02.2019, passed by the second respondent under which the detenu has been branded as a 'Goonda' and detained under The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand offenders, Slum-Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982.

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.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside on the ground of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority while passing the order of Detention against the detenu. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the similar order relied on by the detaining authority in page No.4 of the grounds of detention pertains to some other accused and not that of the co-accused, which shows non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, due to which, the order of Detention passed against the detenu gets vitiated.

4.A perusal of the booklet would show that the similar case relied on by the detaining authority in F1 Chintadripet P.S. Crime No.809 of 2014 registered for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 341, 307 @ 302 IPC, wherein, bail was granted by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.17395 of 2014. The similar case relied on by the detaining authority does not pertain to the co-accused.

5.On considering the materials, we find that there is every force in the contention put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner and hence, the order of Detention passed against the detenu is liable to be set aside and it is, accordingly, set aside.

6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention 105/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 25.02.2019 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, Pravin @ Pravin Kumar, aged 23 years, S/o. Sankar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-IX) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar mmi

To

1. The Secretary, Home,Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, The Greater Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007.

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort. St George, Chennai - 9.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.784 of 2019 VSN-II(CO) SSM(22/07/2019)