Rajashri v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 14.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN H.C.P.No.1025 of 2016 Rajashri .. Petitioner /mother of the detenue Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Manali, Chennai.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records of the detention order, dated 15.2.2016, in detention order No.113/BCDFGISSSV/2016, on the file of the second respondent and to quash the same and to direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the Mohandas @ Sugumar, son of Sundaram, aged about 32 years, who is now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Thamaraiselvan For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, APP

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Mohandas @ Sugumar, son of Sundaram, aged about 32 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.113/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 15.2.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a "Goonda", in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.

3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned detention order mainly on the ground that the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.4 of the order of detention, that the detenu has not filed any bail application for the last two adverse cases, i.e., M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime Nos.1481 of 2015 and 1483 of 2015. It has been further stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, in the above said crime numbers, by filing a bail application before the appropriate Court. It had also been pointed out that no statements had been recorded from the relatives of the detenu with regard to the claim that they are taking steps to move a bail application, on behalf of the detenu, in the said Crime Nos.1481 of 2015 and 1483 of 2015 and no such statements had been furnished to the detenu.

4. The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

5. It is noted from the records available that no statements had been recorded from the relatives concerned to substantiate the claim that they are taking steps to move a bail application on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in the above said adverse cases, in Crime Nos.1481 of 2015 and 1483

of 2015, on the file of the M-2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station. In such circumstances, we find that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.

6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 15.2.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Asst.Registrar (J) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar vvk To 1.The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Chennai.

3.The Inspector of Police, M-6, Manali Police Station, Manali, Chennai.

4. The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai

5. The Joint secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort St. George Chennai-9

6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1025 of 2016 UG (CO) kk 9/12