Regina Mary, F/A 58 Years v. State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 10.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No.1993 of 2016 Regina Mary

...Petitioner

Vs

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep., by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District,Erode.

....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 19.08.2016 in Crl.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2016 against the son of the petitioner, detenu Justin Sundersingh @ Vigilkumar @ Vigil, male, aged 32, S/o Ambruse, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore 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.C.Ramkumar For respondents :

Mr.V.M.R. Rajentren Addl. Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Justin Sundersingh @ Vigilkumar @ Vigil , has come up with this Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the detention order passed against Justin Sundersingh @ Vigilkumar @ Vigil by the second respondent, vide proceedings Crl.M.P.No.11/Goonda/2016 dated 19.08.2016.

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 though there was no bail application pending in Crime Nos.1243/2015, 376/2016, 583/2016, 758/2015, 764/2015 and 116/2016 the detaining authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application, 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 Nos.1243/2015, 376/2016, 583/2016, 758/2015, 764/2015 and 116/2016.

5. We have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, there was no application filed by the detenu seeking bail in Crime Nos.1243/2015, 376/2016 & 583/2016 on the file of Erode Town Police Station, Crime No.758/2015 on the file of Erode North Police Station, Crime Nos.764/2015 & 116/2016 on the file of Erode South 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 19.08.2016, 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. (S.N.J.,) (A.S.M.J.,) 10-04-2017 Speaking Order/ Non-Speaking Order Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no sts

To

1. The Secretary to Government, Government of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009

2. The District Collector and District Magistrate, Erode District,Erode.

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

S.NAGAMUTHU,J.

And DR.ANITA SUMANTH,J., sts Order in H.C.P.No.1993 of 2016 10-04-2017