Sathish v. The State Rep. By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30-09-2016
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.SELVAM AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN H.C.P.No.651 of 2016 Sathish .... Petitioner vs.
1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep.by its Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records pertaining to the order of detention dated 29.02.2016, passed by the 2nd respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.218/2016, quash the same and produce the detenu, Roopesh, aged about 23 years, S/o.Sathish, before this Court and set him at liberty and the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal-1, Chennai.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Manoharan For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, APP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM,J.) This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the records relating to detention order, dated 29.2.2016, passed in BCDFGISSSV No.218 of 2016, by the detaining authority, who has been arrayed as the second respondent herein, against the detenu, by name Roopesh, Son of Sathish and quash the same.
2. The Inspector of Police, Flower Bazar Police Station, as sponsoring authority, has submitted an affidavit to the detaining authority, wherein it is averred that the detenu has involved in the following adverse cases:
(1) C-4, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital Police Station Crime No.99 of 2014, Registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
(2) C-4, Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital Police Station Crime No.110 of 2015, Registered under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code.
(3) C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station Crime No.60 of 2016, Registered under Sections 294(b), 384, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code.
3. Further it is averred in the affidavit that, on 13.01.2016, one Krishnan, son of Subramani, as defacto complainant, has given a complaint against the detenu in C-1 Crime Flower Bazaar Police Station and the same has been registered in Crime No.23 of 2016, under Sections 294(b), 341, 336, 397 and 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code and ultimately, requested the detaining authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.
4. The detaining authority, after considering the fact that the detenu is a professional offender, has derived subjective satisfaction and ultimately branded him as a 'Goonda', by way of passing the impugned detention order and in order to quash the impugned detention order, the present petition has been filed by the father of the detenu, as petitioner.
5. On the side of the respondents, a counter has been, wherein it has been contended inter alia to the effect that all the averments made in the petition are false and the detaining authority , after considering the materials placed before him, has rightly passed the impugned detention order and therefore, the same is not liable to be quashed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that on the side of the detenu, a representation has been given and the same has not been disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
7. Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents has contended that the representation submitted on the side of the detenu has been duly disposed of without delay and therefore, the detention order in question need not be quashed.
8. On the side of the respondents, a proforma has been submitted, wherein it has been clearly stated that in between Column Nos.7 to 9, ten clear working days are available and in between Column Nos.12 and 13, nine clear working days are available and no proper explanation has been given on the side of the respondents with regard to such huge delay in disposing of the representation and that itself would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and therefore, the detention order in question is liable to be quashed.
In fine this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detention order dated 29.02.2016, passed in BCDFGISSSV No.218 OF
2016, by the detaining authority against the detenu, by name Roopesh, son of Sathish, is quashed and the respondents are directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be incarcerated in connection with some other case.
(A.S.J.) (P.K.J.) 30.09.2016 msk To 1.The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-9.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison, Puzhal-1, Chennai 4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras
A.SELVAM,J.
AND P.KALAIYARASAN,J.
msk H.C.P.No.651 of 2016 30.09.2016