Rizvana v. State Of Tamil Nadu Rep By
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Tmt.Rizvana ..
Petitioner/ Wife of detenu Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Chairman Advisory Board Singaravelar Maligai Ground Floor Chennai Collectorate No.32, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 1 3.
The Commissioner of Police Salem City Office of the Commissioner of Police Linemedu, Salem Page Nos.1/13
4.
The Superintendent of Prison Salem Central Prison Salem 5.
The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem City Salem ... Respondents 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 order of detention passed by the 3rd respondent dated 29.09.2022 in C.M.P.No.127/Goonda/Salem City/2022, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenu Sathiq Ali, male aged 37, son of Akbar Basha, (now lodged at Central Prison, Salem) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Elangovan For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor Assisted by Mr.Sylvester John Advocate
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 29.09.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.127/Goonda/Salem City/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and Page Nos.2/13
brevity]. To be noted, fifth respondent is the sponsoring authority and third respondent is the detaining authority as impugned detention order has been made by third 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, Sandoffenders, 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 two adverse cases. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.563 of 2022 on the file of Sooramangalam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 6(a) read with Section 24(1) of Cigarette and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003 read with Sections 273 and 328 of 'Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act 45 of 1860)' ['IPC' for brevity]. 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.
Page Nos.3/13
4. Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all the respondents are before us.
5. To be noted, though several points have been raised /urged in the support affidavit qua captioned HCP, Mr.V.Elangovan, learned counsel on record for petitioner submits that the Arrest Intimation Form which has been relied on by the Detaining Authority has been provided to the detenu as part of the grounds booklet, the same is in English but no Tamil translation has been provided. Learned counsel submits that literacy level of the detenu is 8th Standard in School. Learned counsel submits that the detenu is a school dropout.
6. Be that as it may, learned counsel points out that HCP filed by the co-detenu was allowed on the same point vide order dated 28.03.2023 in H.C.P.No.2037 of 2022. To be noted, name of the petitioner in H.C.P.No.2037 of 2022 is Subanu. It is further to be noted, Subanu's case is reproduction of this Subanu's case is as follows: Page Nos.4/13
Page Nos.5/13
Page Nos.6/13
Page Nos.7/13
Page Nos.8/13
Page Nos.9/13
Page Nos.10/13
7. Learned Prosecutor's contention has been captured in Subanu's case and as the same point is available to the detenu in the case on hand also, we deem it appropriate to not to delve into the submissions. It will suffice to say that Subanu's case applies in all fours to the case on hand.
8. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 29.09.2022 bearing reference C.M.P.No.127/Goonda/Salem City/2022 made by the third respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Sathiq Ali, aged 37 years, son of Thiru.Akbar Basha 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.) (M.N.K.,J.) 05.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Salem.
Page Nos.11/13
To 1.
The Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat Chennai - 600 009 2.
The Chairman Advisory Board Singaravelar Maligai Ground Floor Chennai Collectorate No.32, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 1 3.
The Commissioner of Police Salem City Office of the Commissioner of Police Linemedu, Salem 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Salem Central Prison Salem 5.
The Inspector of Police Sooramangalam Police Station Salem City Salem 6.
The Public Prosecutor Madras High Court, Chennai Page Nos.12/13
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., gpa 05.04.2023 Page Nos.13/13