Lakshmi v. The State Of Tamilnadu, Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.03.2021 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Hon'ble Mr. Justice V.SIVAGNANAM H.C.P.No.1748 of 2020 Lakshmi .. Petitioner Vs.
1. State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Perambalur District.
Perambalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District.
Perambalur.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
5. The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station.
Perambalur District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records in Cr.M.P.No.20/2020 dated 30.07.2020 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Murugesan @ Palaniyandi, son of Subramani, aged about 32 years, who now detained in Central Prison, Trichy, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.K.Gandhikumar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by V.SIVAGNANAM.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Murugesan @ Palaniyandi, son of Subramani, aged about 32 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by its order dated 30.07.2020 in Cr.M.P.No.20/2020, 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 and we have also perused the records carefully.
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 dismissal order of bail in ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. He further submitted that the detaining authority, while detaining the detenu, has not furnished the legible copies of the documents relied on by him. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on these grounds, the detention order is liable to be quashed. 4.On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page Nos.85 to 87 of the booklet, it is clear that the dismissal order of bail in ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.
5. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.20/2020 dated 30.07.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz.,Murugesan @ Palaniyandi, son of Subramani, aged about 32 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar nsd/vsn
To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Perambalur District.
Perambalur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Perambalur District.
Perambalur.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Trichy.
5. The Inspector of Police, Perambalur Police Station.
Perambalur District.
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.1748 of 2020 AD(CO) CSR 22.03.2021