← Library
Madras High CourtHCP/1463/2016allowed

K. Venkatesan, Age 46 Years, v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By

2016-12-23Honourable Mr Justice T.Mathivanan,Honourable Mr Justice M. Jaichandren3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 23.12.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.No.1463 of 2016 K.Venkatesan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

.. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, calling for the records, in connection with the order of detention, passed by the second respondent, dated 11.3.2016, vide order No.281/BCDFGISSSV/2016, against the petitioner's son Rajesh, son of Venkatesan, aged about 24 years, now confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu before this court and to set him at liberty.

For Petitioner : Mr.Palanivel 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 father of the detenu, namely, Rajesh, aged about 24 years, son of Venkatesan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in BCDFGISSSV No.281/2016, dated 11.3.2016, 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 to 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 Rajesh, is in remand in R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime Nos.362/2016 and 395/2016 and R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Crime No.405/2016 and the detenu had moved a bail application, for R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.395/2016, which is the ground case, before the Court of Principal Sessions, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.3746/2016, which is pending. The detenu had also moved a bail application, for R-3 Ashok Nagar Police Station Crime No.

362/2016, which is the third adverse case, before the Court of XVII Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai, in Crl.M.P.No.994/2016, which is also pending. It had been further stated in the order of detention that the detenu had not moved any bail application, in the fourth adverse case, in R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Crime No.405/2016, so far. It had been further stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, in the said Crime No.405/2016, by filing a bail application, before the appropriate court.

However, it had been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner 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 above said adverse case, in Crime No.405 of 2016 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

R-10 MGR Nagar Police Station Crime No.405/2016, which is the fourth adverse 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.

6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 11.3.2016, 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 /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, Egmore, Chennai-600 008.

3.The Superintendent, central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & Order), Fort saint George, Chennai-9 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.1463 of 2016 NRI(CO) GN(20/01/2017)