S.Shanthi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 04.01.2023 Coram THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH H.C.P.No.1404 of 2022 S.Shanthi W/o.Samikannu ... Petitioner Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai - 600 045.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, S-12 Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chennai District - 600 04.

(Crime No.135 of 2022) ... 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 from the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2022 dated 25.04.2022 and by setting aside the order of detention passed by the 2nd respondent and setting the detenu namely Subramani, S/o.Samikannu aged about 28 years at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal.

For Petitioner :

Mr.G.Balachandar For Respondents :

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

O R D E R

[Made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.] The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, Subramani S/o.Samikannu, aged 28 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2022 dated 25.04.2022, 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 learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

2/6

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the detaining authority was aware of the fact that the detenu had filed bail applications in both the adverse cases and the same were pending. That apart, no bail application was filed in the ground case. However, the detaining authority had come to a conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon an order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5200/2021. Learned counsel submitted that the order relied upon by the detaining authority is not a similar case. Hence, the detention order suffers from non-application of mind.

4. We have carefully gone through the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.5200/2021. The accused therein was granted bail on the ground that there was no previous bad antecedents against him and that apart, he had suffered incarceration sufficiently for a long time. In the present case, there are three adverse cases and a ground case against the detenu and therefore, there are bad antecedents against the detenu. Hence, the order relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be held to be a similar case and hence, it reflects non-application of mind. 3/6

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in BCDFGISSSV No.60/2022 dated 25.04.2022, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Subramani S/o.Samikannu, aged 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

[PNP, J.] [NAV, J.] 04.01.2023 Index: Yes/No gm/ssr To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Tambaram City, Chennai - 600 045.

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

4.The Inspector of Police, S-12 Chitlapakkam Police Station, Chennai District - 600 04.

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

4/6

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

5/6

P.N.PRAKASH, J.

and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.

ssr H.C.P.No.1404 of 2022 04.01.2023 6/6