Saravanakumar v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 19.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.No.1315 of 2016 Saravanakumar ... 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, The Commissioner office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

.. 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 relating to the detention order, in memo No.541/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 3.6.2016, passed by the second respondent and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother Sathish @ Sathishkumar @ Vanthi Sathish, son of Sekar, aged about 24 years, now confined in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this court and to set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Muthukumar For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the brother of the detenu, namely, Sathish @ Sathishkumar @ Vanthi Sathish, aged about 24 years, son of Sekar, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in 541/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 3.6.2016, passed

by the second respondent, detaining the detenu under Section 3

(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, 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 to set him at liberty, forthwith.

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

3. Though, several grounds had been raised by the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order of detention, dated 3.6.2016, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that, in paragraph No.4 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority had stated that in a similar case registered at F-1 Chindadripet Police Station Crime No.809/2014, bail had been granted, by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.17395/2014. However, the bail order copy, relating to the said Crime No.809 of 2014, had not been furnished to the detenu. Hence, the detenu had been prevented from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention. Thus, the detention order is vitiated and the same is liable to be quashed.

4. The said submission 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. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned, it is found that the detaining authority had relied on the similar case registered, in Crime No.809 of 2014, by the F-1 Chindadripet Police Station, wherein bail had been granted to the accused concerned, by the Principal Sessions Court, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.17395 of 2014. But, the copy of the bail order, relating to the said case, had not been furnished to the detenu. As such, we find that the non furnishing of the copy of the bail order would prejudice the detenu, in making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention, dated 3.6.2016. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the impugned detention order.

6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 3.6.2016, 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/- Assistant Registrar(CS II) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar vvk To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

3.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Secretariat, Chennai - 9.

4.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1315 of 2016 mg[co] srg 23/01/2017