Manikandan v. The Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 20.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH Mr.Manikandan S/o.Jayavel ..
Petitioner/ Brother of the detenu Vs.
1.
The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Dept., Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority Office of the Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City 3.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison at Coimbatore Coimbatore - 18 4.
The Inspector of Police D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station Coimbatore District ..
Respondents Page Nos.1/7
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records in detention order in C.No.53/G/IS/2022 dated 23.08.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent and set aside the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenu J.Sudhirkumar @ Sudhir, son of Jeyavel, aged 29 years, confined in Central Prison at Coimbatore before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Ms.R.Subadra Devi For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by N.ANAND VENKATESH, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by brother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 23.08.2022 bearing reference C.No.53/G/IS/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fourth respondent is the sponsoring authority and second respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by second respondent.
Page Nos.2/7
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 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.There are three adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.308 of 2022 on the file of D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) 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. Ms.R.Subadra Devi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.N.Narkeeran, learned counsel, for all respondents are before us. Page Nos.3/7
5. The main ground that was urged by learned counsel for petitioner is that the detaining authority after being aware of the fact that the bail application filed by the detenu was dismissed on 27.07.2022, came to the conclusion that there is likelihood of the detenu being let out on bail by relying upon the order passed in C.M.P.No.10397 of 2021 by the Judicial Magistrate VII, Coimbatore dated 30.03.2021. Learned counsel submitted that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority does not pertain to a similar case. Hence the impugned detention order suffers from non-application of mind.
6. Heard the submissions of Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor.
7. The detenu was arrested in the course of investigation in Crime No.308 of 2022 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387 and 506(ii) IPC. The bail application filed by the detenu was also dismissed and the same has been taken note by the detaining authority. However, the detaining authority came to the conclusion that there is an imminent possibility of the detenu being let out on bail by relying upon on an order passed in C.M.P.No.10397 of 2021.
Page Nos.4/7
8. We carefully went through the order passed in C.M.P.No.10397 of 2021, the accused therein were released on bail based on the compromise entered into between the defacto complainant and the accused.
9. In view of the same, the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered as a similar case and ex consequenti the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind.
10. In the result, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 23.08.2022 bearing reference C.No.53/G/IS/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu J.Sudhirkumar @ Sudhir, male, aged 29 years, son of Thiru. Jayavel is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. (M.S.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 20.03.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Coimbatore.
Page Nos.5/7
To 1.
The Secretary to the Government Home, Prohibition & Excise (XVI) Dept., Fort St.George, Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority Office of the Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City 3.
The Superintendent of Police Central Prison at Coimbatore Coimbatore - 18 4.
The Inspector of Police D-4, Kuniyamuthur Police Station Coimbatore District 5.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH., gpa 20.03.2023 Page Nos.7/7