Meena v. Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P.NO.1108 OF 2023 Meena ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police O/o. Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai District.
..
Respondents 1/10
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ order or direction in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order dated 16.11.2022 in No.425/BCDFGISSSV/2022 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of petitioner brother one named Mr.Raja @ Panni Raja S/o. Jeganathan aged about 29 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.P.Muthamizh Selvakumar For Respondents :
Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.C.Aravind
O R D E R
[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] came up for admission on 04.07.2023, this Bench made an order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
2/10
3/10
4/10
2.The aforementioned order made in the 04.07.2023 Admission listing shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this order which means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order in the Admission listing shall be used in the instant order also. 3.Before proceeding further, we deem it appropriate to say that aforementioned 'preventive detention order dated 16.11.2022 bearing reference Memo No.425/BCDFGISSSV/2022' made by the Detaining Authority shall hereinafter be referred to as 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of convenience and clarity. 4.As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the aforementioned Admission Board order, at the time of admission, the point that the Detaining Authority has belatedly served the grounds booklet to the detenu was raised, but in the final hearing Board, Mr.
P.
enlarged on bail is impaired. Elaborating on this point, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph 4 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order and the same reads as follows: '4...Further, in a similar case registered u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 324, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC in R-6 Kumaran Nagar Police Station in Cr.No.527/2021, the bail was granted to the some other accused by the Court of the learned Principal Sessions Judge at Chennai in Crl.M.P.No.19198/2021. Hence, I infer that it is very likely of his coming out on bail in R-11 Ramapuram Police Station in Crime No.250/2022, since, in a similarly placed cases, the bail was granted by the courts, after a lapse of time...'
5.Adverting to the aforementioned portion of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order, learned counsel submitted that the bail order referred to by the Detaining Authority is in the case of one Ashok (hereinafter be referred to as 'Ashok's case' for the sake of convenience) and that Ashok's case bail order has been furnished to the detenu as part of the booklet at pages 381 to 383. Learned counsel drew our attention to paragraph 6/10
5 of Ashok's case bail order and the same reads as follows: '5.According to CPP, the petitioner is having one previous case. Injured was discharged from the hospital.' 6.Elaborating further on the aforementioned point, learned counsel submitted that in Ashok's case even according to the learned Sessions Judge who granted bail there was only one previous case whereas in the case on hand, even according to the impugned preventive detention order, there are as many as three adverse cases and one ground case. Therefore, the comparison of Ashok's case bail order with the ground case to arrive at subjective satisfaction qua imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is clearly a flawed exercise is learned counsel's say. 7.In response to the aforementioned argument, learned Prosecutor submitted to the contrary.
Learned Prosecutor submitted that alleged offences in Ashok's case and the ground case are broadly comparable. 8.This Court carefully considered the rival submissions.
be taken into account while comparing two cases for arriving at subjective satisfaction. Therefore, we have no difficulty in sustaining the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner and saying that the comparison is bad, it vitiates the impugned preventive detention order and leaves it liable to be dislodged.
9.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 16.11.2022 bearing reference Memo No.425/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru. Raja @ Panni Raja, aged 29 years, son of Thiru. Jeganathan 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.] 03.08.2023 Index : Yes TK P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
To 8/10
1.The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Department Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police O/o. Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police R-11, Ramapuram Police Station, Chennai District.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
9/10
M.SUNDAR, J.
AND R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
TK H.C.P.NO.1108 OF 2023 03.08.2023 10/10