Vijayakumar @ Sanjay Vijaykumar v. State Of Tamil Nadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 14.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Vijaykumar @ Sanjay Vijaykumar .. Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the entire records, relating to petitioner's detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 21.07.2022 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings No.204/BCDFGISSSV/2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner namely Vijaykumar @ Sanjay Page Nos.1/7
Vijaykumar, aged 37 years, son of Amuthan, before this Court and set him at liberty, now petitioner detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
For Petitioner :
Mr.C.C.Chellappan For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 21.07.2022 bearing reference No.204/BCDFGISSSV/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, third respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic Page Nos.2/7
offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.
3.
The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.131 of 2022 on the file of Job Racket Wing, Central Crime Branch I, Chennai for alleged offences under Sections 406 and 420 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. Owing to the nature of the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix or be detained further by facts.
4. Mr.C.C.Chellappan, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.
Page Nos.3/7
5.
Notwithstanding very many grounds urged/raised in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner predicates his campaign against the impugned detention order on one point and that point turns on subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority pertaining to imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail. Adverting to paragraph 4 of the impugned detention order, learned counsel submits that the detaining authority has arrived at subjective satisfaction in this regard by saying that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail. In this regard, learned Additional Public Prosecutor drew our attention to pages 547 and 549 of the 'booklet' containing the grounds of detention ('said booklet' for the sake of convenience and clarity).
Page 547 is a Section 161(3) of 'The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974)' [hereinafter 'Cr.PC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] statement from Pramila (mother of the detenu). Page 549 is a special report from the jurisdictional Inspector of Police i.e., third respondent, who is the sponsoring authority. This statement as well as special report does not contain any date. This by itself vitiates the very veracity of the statement and the special report. Therefore, we have no difficulty in accepting the submission that the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining Page Nos.
authority with regard to imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail is impaired and perilled. Therefore, the impugned detention order deserves to be dislodged.
6.
Ergo, the sequitur is, the captioned HCP is allowed and the impugned detention order dated 21.07.2022 bearing reference No.204/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and detenu Thiru.Vijaykumar @ Sanjay Vijaykumar, male, aged about 37 years, S/o.Thiru.Amuthan, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s. (M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 14.03.2023 Index : Yes / No mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai -600 009.
Page Nos.5/7
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Chennai.
3. The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch - I, Chennai.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mmi 14.03.2023 Page Nos.7/7