Manikandan v. State Of Tamil Nadu, Rep.By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 30.10.2023 CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN Manikandan S/o Thomas ..
Petitioner v.
1. State of Tamil Nadu rep. by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Chennai 600 054
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police T-3, Korattur Police Station Chennai ..
Respondents
Writ 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 detention order in Memo No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 29.12.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the petitioner's brother Dilliraj, S/o Thomas aged about 31 years the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner ::
Mr.C.Johnson Samuel For Respondents ::
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.C.Aravind, Advocate
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.S.SUNDAR,J.) The petitioner, who is the brother of the detenu, namely, Dilliraj, S/o Thomas, aged 31 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 29.12.2022 slapped on his brother, branding him as 'Goonda' 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 14 of 1982).
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. Though several grounds are raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner confined his argument to the point that the detaining authority has relied upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.10485 of 2021 dated 26.05.2021 by the Court of Sessions at Chennai, which is not similar to the ground case alleged against the detenu. The learned counsel pointed out that the bail was granted to the accused in similar case only after recording the Covid-19 pandemic situation. Therefore, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
4. This Court in several cases has held that the order passed by the detaining authority without adverting to the grounds on which the accused in similar case was granted bail, would vitiate the order of detention for non
application of mind. Therefore, this Court, concurring with the statement of the learned counsel for petitioner on facts that the impugned detention order is vitiated for non application of mind, is inclined to allow the habeas corpus petition.
5. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 29.12.2022 in No.203/BCDFGISSSV/2022 is hereby set aside and the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Dilliraj, S/o Thomas, aged 31 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless he is required in connection with any other case. Index : yes/no (S.S.S.R.,J.) (S.M.,J.) 30.10.2023 ss To
1. The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Avadi City, Chennai 600 054
3. The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai 600 066
4. The Inspector of Police T-3, Korattur Police Station Chennai
5. The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras
S.S.SUNDAR,J.
AND SUNDER MOHAN,J.
ss 30.10.2023