Jayasudha, v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.11.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN H.C.P.No.1093 of 2016 Jayasudha .. 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 District Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, Salem.
.. 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 detention order, dated 13.4.2016 in C.M.P.No.12/Goonda/C2/2016, passed by the second respondent and quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's husband, namely, Vijai @ Vijayan, son of Arumugam, aged about 34 years, who is presently undergoing detention in the Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty, forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Anand For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN, J. ] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the wife of the detenu, namely, Vijai @ Vijayan, aged about 34 years, son of Arumugam, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.M.P.No.12/Goonda/C2/2016, dated 13.4.2016, 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, Salem, 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 stated that the Detaining Authority had stated, in paragraph No.4 of the Detention Order, that he is aware that the detenu Viji @ Vijayan is in remand in Mac. Donald Choultry Police station crime No.31/2016 and that he has not filed any bail application before the court. The detaining authority had further stated that, in a similar case, registered in Crime No.246 of 2012, on the file of the Salem Town Crime Police Station, bail was granted to the accused concerned and therefore, there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had stated that no bail application has been filed on behalf of the detenu and hence, there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, in the near future. Therefore, the conclusion of the detaining authority that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail shows his non application of mind, while passing the detention order.
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. On verification of the records, it has been found that the detenu has not filed any bail application before the court, in the ground case, in Crime No.31 of 2016, on the file of the Mac Donald Choultry Police Station. However, the detaining authority had stated in paragraph No.4 of the detention order that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, in the above said ground case, as bail had been granted to the accused concerned, in a similar case registered, in Crime No.246 of 2012, on the file of the Salem Town Crime Police Station. In such circumstances, it is clear that no bail application has been filed by the detenu in the ground case. Therefore, the statement of the detaining authority in the detention order that there is a possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, shows the non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority. Thus, it is clear that the detention order has been passed by the detaining authority without proper application of mind and appreciation of facts. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.
6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 13.4.2016, 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 (CO) /true copy/ Sub Asst. Registrar To
1. The Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Salem District, Salem.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (L&O) Fort St.George, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1 cc to Mr.C.prabakaran,advocate,sr.67475.
skv(co) krd 9/12 H.C.P.No.1093 of 2016