Nagapushanam, v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep. By,

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED 12.05.2017

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.V. MURALIDARAN and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S. BASKARAN H.C.P No.2698 of 2016 Nagapushanam

...Petitioner/Mother of the

detenue Vs

1. State of Tamil nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai ....Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction more specifically in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to produce the petitioner's son by name Kalvettu Ravi @ Ravisankar, S/o Jothilingam, aged about 36 years, before this Court, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, set him at liberty and to call for the records pertaining to the order of detention passed in No.1184/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 28.11.2016 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same. For Petitioner :

Mr.V. Saravanan For respondents:

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

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.V. MURALDARAN,J.,) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Kalvettu Ravi @ Ravisankar, S/o Jothilingam, aged about 36 years, has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against Kalvettu Ravi @ Ravisankar, by the second respondent, vide proceedings No. 1184/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 28.11.2016.

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 were no bail applications pending in Crime Nos.1372/2016, 1497/2016 and 1126/2016, 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.1372/2016, 1497/2016 and 1126/2016.

5. We have considered the above submissions. Admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, there were no applications filed by the detenu seeking bail in Crime Nos.1372/2016 on the file of N1 Royapuram Police Station; Cr.No.1497/2016 on the file of H6, R.K. Nagar Police Sttaion and Cr.No.1126/2016 on the file of H1 Washermenpet 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 28.11.2016, 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/dAssistant Registrar(CSVII) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar rg To

1. State of Tamil nadu rep by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai

3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai

4. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal Chennai (In duplicate for Communication to detenu) 5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law and Order Fort St.George Chennai-9 HCP No.2698 of 2016 sj(co) aa08/06/2017