C. Raja, S/O. Chellaiyan v. The Secretary To Government
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.06.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.28 of 2016 C.Raja ... Petitioner Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.900 of 2015 dated 09.09.2015 against the detenu, Chandru @ Chandrasekar, son of Raja, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Sudharsan For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by V.BHARATHIDASAN,J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Chandru @ Chandrasekar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent, in B.C.D.F.G.I.S.S.S.V.No.900 of 2015, dated 09.09.2015 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the petitioner's son by name Chandru @
Chandrasekar, son of Raja, aged about 23 years detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.
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.N.Sudharsan, 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 T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.973/2015 and 976/2015. 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 T.11 Thirunindravur Police Station Crime Nos.973/2015 and 976/2015, 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 09.09.2015, 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 V) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar sri To
1. The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police.
3. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public(Law & Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.28 of 2016 GJ II(CO) CA(14/06/2016)