S.Murugan v. The State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.03.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH S.Murugan S/o.Srinivasan ..
Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Salem City, Line Medu, Salem - 636 006.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Salem - 636 007.
4.
The Inspector of Police Pallapatty Police Station Salem City - 636 004.
..
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 relating to the detention order dated 08.08.2022 passed by the second respondent in C.M.P.No.85/GOONDA/SALEM CITY/2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely, Yogeswaran @ Rotti, son of Murugan aged about 26 years, Chinna Ammapet, Mannarpalayam Pirivu Road, Ponnammapet, Salem who is presently under going detention in the Central Prison, Salem, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982) before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner :
Mr.M.Sivakumar For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, Advocate
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 father of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 08.08.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.85/Goonda/Salem City/2022' Page Nos.2/7
[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 the 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 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 and one ground case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.343 of 2022 on the file of Pallapatty Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 392 read with 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of Page Nos.3/7
convenience and clarity].
4. Mr.M.Sivakumar, learned counsel on record 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.
5. The main ground that was canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, from the Arrest Intimation Form found at Page No.139 of the paper booklet, it is apparent that there is no material to show that the mobile number that has been mentioned therein belongs to the father of the detenu. That apart, there is no signature found in the witness column. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that there is an infraction of statutory rights that has been given to the detenu to inform about the arrest to the near relatives and accordingly, the impugned detention order stands vitiated.
6. We have carefully perused the Arrest Intimation Form. It is found that the detenu was arrested on 08.07.2022 during the course of investigation in Crime No.343 of 2022. It is mentioned at S.No.12 of the Page Nos.4/7
Arrest Intimation Form that the arrest information was sent to the father of the detenu namely, Murugan. There is also mention of mobile number to which SMS is said to have been sent after the arrest of the detenu. There is absolutely no material to show that the mobile number that has been mentioned in the Arrest Intimation Form belongs to the father of the detenu. That apart, the signature of the father of the detenu is also not found in the witness column. In view of the same, there is absolutely no material before the Detaining Authority to establish that the arrest of the detenu was intimated to the near relatives. On this ground alone, the impugned detention order is liable to be interfered with by this Court.
7. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ.
8. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 08.08.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.85/Goonda/Salem City/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Mr.Yogeswaran @ Rotti, aged 26 years, son of Page Nos.5/7
Mr.Murugan, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (N.A.V.,J.) 23.03.2023 Index : Yes Speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by Secretary to Government Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Salem City, Line Medu, Salem - 636 006.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Salem - 636 007.
4.
The Inspector of Police Pallapatty Police Station Salem City - 636 004.
5.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and N.ANAND VENKATESH, J., mk 23.03.2023 Page Nos.7/7