Ramesh v. State Of Tamilnadu Rep By

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 15.06.2016

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.BHARATHIDASAN H.C.P.No.444 of 2016 Ramesh .. Petitioner vs.

1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2. The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner of Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

.. Respondents Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the order of detention Memo. No. 181/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 23/02/2016 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's brother Suresh @ Market Suresh s/o Muthu, aged about 39 years, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the petitioner's brother Suresh @ Market Suresh at liberty.

For Petitioner :Mr.K.S.Kaviarasu 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 brother of detenu, namely, Suresh @ Market Suresh, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records connected with the detention order of the second respondent, in Memo. No. 181/BCDFGISSSV/2016 dated 23/02/2016 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body and person of the

petitioner's brother by name Suresh @ Market Suresh, aged about 39 years detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

2. Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he focused his argument on the ground that in Cr.No.114 of 2016, the bail application filed by the detenu was returned stating that the offence is triable by the Court of Sessions by the learned Magistrate concerned and thereafter, no fresh application was filed by him seeking bail. When that be so, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is absolutely baseless.

3. We have considered the above submissions.

4. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from paragraph 4 of the detention order, it is crystal clear that the detenu had not filed any application seeking bail, after dismissal of the earlier applications. When that be so, it is not explained to the Court as to how the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. This shows the predetermined mind of the detaining authority. In such view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

5. Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order dated 23.02.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

2.The Commissioner of Police, The Commissioner of Office, Vepery, Chennai-600 007.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal.

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.444 of 2016 ctk[co] srg 01/07/2016