← Library
Madras High CourtHCP/1052/2016allowed

Thesamal, v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By

2016-11-10Honourable Mr Justice S. Baskaran,Honourable Mr Justice M. Jaichandren3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 10.11.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN H.C.P.No.1052 of 2016 Thesamal .. Petitioner 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, Chennai Police, Vepery, 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 pertaining to the order of detention passed in No.437/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 15.4.2016 passed by the second respondent and set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's son, by name, Karthik, son of Rajendran, aged about 22 years, before this Court, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Thenrajan 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, Karthik, son of Rajendran, aged about 22 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.437/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 15.04.2016, 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 relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, in H.5 Washermenpet Police Station Crime No.238 of 2016, 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 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. A memo, dated 8.10.2016, has been filed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, seeking permission to accept the typed set of papers, relating to the correct detention order, dated 15.4.2016, in respect of the detenu Karthik, son of Rajendran. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the memo is accepted.

6. 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 case. 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.

7. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 15.04.2016, 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.

-s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant 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, Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai.

3.The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai (Duplicate for Communication to Detenue 4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and Order Fort St.George Chennai-91 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1052 of 2016 aa11/11/2016