Anandhi v. The State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.6.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.252 of 2016 Anandhi ..Petitioner/mother of the detenue Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Vepery,Greater Chennai Police ..Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling for the records relating to the order of detention BCDFGISSSV.NO.1280/2015 dated 30/12/2015 passed by the 2nd respondent and to quash the same and also to direct the detenue KARTHIK @ KARTHIKEYAN AGE 29 YEARS S/O.ANTHONYDOSS who is presently detained in the Central Prision PUZHAL II CHENNAI to be produced before this court and set at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Elan Kumaran For Respondents :
Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.NAGAMUTHU, J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the mother of detenu, namely, Karthik @ Karthikeyan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent, in BCDFGISSSV No.1280/2015, dated 30.12.2015 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son by name Karthik @ Karthikeyan, son of Anthonydoss, aged about 29 years detained in Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and 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 for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Though, several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.S.Elan Kumaran, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had 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 no bail applications had been moved on behalf of the detenu, in S5, Pallavaram Police Station Crime Nos.2580/2015 and 2592/2015 and Tambaram Railway Police Station Crime No.176/2015. However, in the detention order, it had been stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to take him out on bail, in the above cases, by filing bail applications before the appropriate Courts.
4. 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 bail applications, on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in the above said cases. 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.
5.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 30.12.2015, 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 kua
To 1.The Secretary to Government, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home), Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Veppari, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.66
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort St. George, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.252 of 2016 CTK(CO) EU 4.7.16