Beemarao, M/A 57 Years v. The Secretary, Home
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 13.04.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No. 1972 of 2016 Beemarao
...Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Commissioner of Police.
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
...Respondents
Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, order or Direction in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 22.08.2016 in BCDFGISSSV No.945/2016 against the petitioner's son by name Lenin, male, aged 28, S/o Beemarao, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr. S. Prabhu For respondents:
Mr.V.M.R. Rajentren, Addl. Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the detention order passed against his son Lenin, S/o Beemarao, by the second respondent, vide proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.945/2016 dated 22.08.2016.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that no bail applications have been filed in Crime No.635/2016 and the detaining authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail applications in the above case, in which case there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel pointed out that to arrive at such a conclusion, there was no material placed before the detaining authority at all.
4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that in the Special report submitted by the Inspector of Police, there is a statement to the effect that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application seeking bail in connection with the case in Crime No.635/2016.
5. We have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, no bail application has been filed by the detenu seeking bail in Crime No.635 of 2016 on the file of M-3, Puzhal Police Station. Though it is alleged that his relatives were taking steps to file an application for bail, there were no materials available before the detaining authority, except the report of the Inspector of Police. Even the report of the Inspector of Police does not spell out as to how he came to know that the relatives were taking steps to file application seeking bail. Full details as to who are those relatives, who were taking steps to file bail application also have not been mentioned. Thus, in our considered view, without making proper application of mind relating to these facts, the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same.
6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 22.08.2016, 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 VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sr/ksa
To
1. The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamilnadu, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner, Commissioner of Police.
Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
H.C.P.No. 1972 of 2016 AK(CO) EU 28.4.17