Kumar v. The State Of Tamilnadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Kumar .. Petitioner Vs 1.State of Tamil Nadu rep. By The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Chennai - 54.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4. The Inspector of Police, E-4 Kattur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records Page Nos.1/15
relating to the detention order in Memo No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 14.06.2022 passed by the second respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son Veeraraghavan @ Nagai Ragava, S/o.Kumar, aged about 27 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's son Veeraraghavan @ Nagai Ragava, S/o.Kumar, aged about 27 years, the detenu herein at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel for Mr.D.Gopikrishnan For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by father of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 14.06.2022 bearing reference No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2022' Page Nos.2/15
[hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent. 2.
Impugned detention order has been made 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 No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3.
There are two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.125 of 2022 on the file of E-4 Kattur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] read with Section 24(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003. Page Nos.3/15
Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
5.
We are informed by both sides without any disputation or contestation that co-accused in the ground case were also clamped with preventive detention orders and one of the co-accused (wife of the co-accused) challenged the same vide H.C.P. No.1487 of 2022. We are informed that this Bench allowed the said H.C.P. No.1487 of 2022 in and by an order dated 01.03.2023 in Panchavaram @ Panchavarnam Vs. The Secretary to Government and Others reported vide Neutral Citation of Madras High Court being 2023/MHC/893 and a scanned reproduction of this order is as follows:
Page Nos.4/15
Page Nos.5/15
Page Nos.6/15
Page Nos.7/15
Page Nos.8/15
Page Nos.9/15
Page Nos.10/15
Page Nos.11/15
Page Nos.12/15
6.
The aforesaid Panchavarnam case reported in 2023/MHC/893 is applicable to the case on hand is the common say of both sides. In other words, to put it differently, it is submitted that the point on which the Panchavarnam case reported in 2023/MHC/893 was allowed is available to the detenu in the case on hand i.e., captioned HCP is the common say of both sides. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to dislodge the impugned detention order in the captioned HCP also.
7. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 14.06.2022 bearing reference No.57/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Veeraraghavan @ Nagai Ragava, male, aged 27 years, son of Thiru.Kumar 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 14.03.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. Page Nos.13/15
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Avadi City, Chennai - 54.
3. The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 66.
4. The Inspector of Police, E-4 Kattur Police Station, Thiruvallur District.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.14/15
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mmi 14.03.2023 Page Nos.15/15