T.Sasikala v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 09.06.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.170 of 2016 T.Sasikala ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem - 7.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records leading to the detention of petitioner's husband Thangaraj, son of Gopal, aged 40 years presently detained in Central Prison, Salem under Act 14/1982 as a "VIDEO PIRATE" vide the detention order dated 05.01.2016 in C.M.P.No.1/Video Pirate/Salem City/2016 directing to produce the body or the person of the detenue before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Salem by setting aside the above order.
For Petitioner :
Mr.B.Vasudevan For Respondents :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU.J] Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in C.M.P.No.1/Video Pirate/Salem City/2016 dated 05.01.2016, whereby the detenu/husband of the petitioner, by name, Thangaraj, son of
Gopal, aged 40 years, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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".
2.We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Even though several grounds have been raised in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, in paragraph 5 of the detention order dated 05.01.2016, it has been stated that the petition filed by the detenu seeking bail in Cr.No.1220 of 2015 was pending and though it is stated that in similar case in Cr.No.237 of 2013, bail was granted and thus there was likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail immediately in Cr.No.1220/2015, the said conclusion is not correct.
4. We have perused the records. It is seen that Cr.No.1220 of 2015 involves offence under Section 65 of the Copy Right Act; whereas, the offence involved in Cr.No.237 of 2013 is under Sections 51 r/w 63, 52(A) r/w 68 (A) of Copy Right Act, 1957 and 292(2)(a) I.P.C. Thus, the two cases are dissimilar. When that be so, the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail, is based on no materials. In such view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order dated 05.01.2016, passed by the second respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VII) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Salem City.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Salem - 7.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.B.Vasudevan, Advocate, S.R.No.31156 H.C.P.No.170 of 2016 SKV(CO) CA(23/06/2016)