A.Pradeepkumar @ Jacky v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.11.2022 Coram The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN A.Pradeepkumar @ Jacky .. Petitioner Vs 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police /Detaining Authority, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4.State represented by The Inspector of Police, D-1, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District.
.. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus call for the entire records relating to the petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 23.02.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.No.17/G/IS/2022, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner viz. A.Pradeepkumar @ Jacky, S/o.Arumugam, aged 23 years, before this Court and set the petitioner at liberty from detention, now the petitioner detained at the Central Prison, Coimbatore.
For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.) The petitioner is the detenu A.Pradeepkumar @ Jacky, S/o.Arumugam, aged 23 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C.No.17/G/IS/2022 dated 23.02.2022, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) 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.
3.
Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the Form of order for the detention in custody for an accused person has not been properly translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
4.
The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the habeas corpus petition by filing his counter. 5.
On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.48 and 49 of the booklet, it is clear that the Form of order for the detention in custody for an accused person has not been properly
translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in C.No.17/G/IS/2022 dated 23.02.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., A.Pradeepkumar @ Jacky, S/o.Arumugam, aged 23 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
(P.N.P., J.) (TKRJ) 08.11.2022 Index: Yes/No nsd
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XVI) Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police /Detaining Authority, Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison - Coimbatore, Coimbatore District.
4.The Inspector of Police, D-1, Ramanathapuram Police Station, Coimbatore District.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
P.N.PRAKASH, J.
and RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.
nsd 08.11.2022