Rajalakshmi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 03.11.2023 CORAM :

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Rajalakshmi W/o Karthick ..

Petitioner v.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Additional Chief Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise Secretariat, Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

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

3. The Inspector of Police C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station Chennai

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II Puzhal, Chennai ..

Respondents

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2023 dated 02.06.2023, on the file of second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and produce the detenu Karthick @ Tappa Karthick, Son of Sekar, aged 24 years, now confined at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner ::

Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents ::

Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, Advocate

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.) The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Karthick @ Tappa Karthick, aged 24 years, S/o Sekar, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.06.2023 slapped on her husband, branding him as 'Drug Offender' under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral

Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982).

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.

3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out from the booklet that the similar case relied upon by the detaining authority, is not similar to the case on hand. A reading of the order that was passed by the learned Principal Special Judge in Crl.M.P.No.662 of 2018 dated 31.08.2018 shows that bail was granted in that case after recording that the co-accused were released on bail and that the accused therein was in custody for more than 43 days. It was also recorded that there was no objection by the Special Public Prosecutor. However, a reading of the impugned detention order shows that the detaining authority has not applied his mind while coming to the conclusion that the detenu is likely to be released on bail in the ground case. Therefore, the subjective satisfaction suffers from non-application of mind

and on that score, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.

4. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 02.06.2023 in No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2023 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Karthick @ Tappa Karthick, S/o Sekar, aged 24 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 03.11.2023 ss To

1. The Addl. Chief Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise Fort St.George Chennai 600 009

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

3. The Inspector of Police

C-1, Flower Bazaar Police Station Chennai

4. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison-II Puzhal, Chennai

5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras

S.S.SUNDAR,J.

AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.

ss 03.11.2023