Ranjitha, Aged 22 Years, v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 24.04.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No.2597 of 2016 Ranjitha, W/o. Manikandan, No.33/10, Annamalai Nagar 5th Street, Thiruvottriyur, Chennai -600 019.

...Petitioner

Vs 1.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, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

...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 calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.788/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 28.07.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamilnadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's mother in law Devi, W/o Karthik aged about 32 years and set the detenue herein at liberty.

For Petitioner :

Mr.D. Saravana Kumar For respondents:

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

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner, who is the Daughter in law of the detenue Tmt. Devi, W/o. Karthik, aged about 32 years, has come up with

this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against Tmt.Devi by the second respondent, vide proceedings No.788/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 28.07.2016.

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 bail application was filed in Crl M.P.No.12016/2016 before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chennai in respect of Crime No.425/2016 on the file of G2 Periyamedu Police Station and the same is pending, there was no further bail application pending as on the date of passing of the detention order by the second respondent in Crime Nos.420/2016 and 422/2016 and 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.420/2016 and 422/2016.

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.420/2016 and 422/2016 on the file of G-2 Periyamedu 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 28.07.2016, 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 //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar jbm/rkp 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, The Commissioner Office, Vepery, Chennai - 600 007

3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Special Prison for Woe=men, Puzhal, chennai.

4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & ORder) Fort St. Saint George, Chennai-9.

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.

H.C.P.No.2597 of 2016 SKV(CO) RS(11/05/2017)