Rajakumari v. State 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 Rajakumari ..
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 District Collector and District Magistrate Chengalpattu District Chengalpattu 3.
The Superintendent of Police O/o. Superintendent of Police Chengalpattu Chengalpattu District 4.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066 Page Nos.1/7
5.
State rep. By The Inspector of Police PEW Madhuranthangam Police Station Chengalpattu District ... 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 the petitioner's husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order dated 11.10.2022 on the file of second respondent herein and made in proceedings CPT No.52 of 2022 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's husband namely Karthick, son of Argumugam, aged about 32 years before this Court and set the petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's husband is detained in Cental Prison-Puzhal. For Petitioner :
Mr.V.Paarthiban for Mr.R.Sasikumar 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.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.,] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by wife of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 11.10.2022 bearing reference CPT No.52 of 2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth Page Nos.2/7
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 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 'Bootlegger' within the meaning of Section 2(b) 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.694 of 2022 on the file of Madhuranthagam Prohibition Enforcement Wing for alleged offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. 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.V.Paarthiban, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Page Nos.3/7
Public Prosecutor, assisted by Mr.Sylvester John, Advocate, for all the respondents are before us.
5. The primary point urged by the learned counsel for petitioner in assailing the impugned detention order is, the wife of the detenu has given a statement on 11.10.2022 clearly stating that they are not intending to take steps to file a bail application before the Sessions Court.
6. Though this has been referred to in the detention order, the Detaining Authority had further ipso facto had stated that there have been circumstances in the past whereby Court concerned has released similar accused on bail. The Detaining Authority has further referred to the similar bail order in C.M.P.No.2698 of 2020 wherein the bail was granted taking into consideration the directions issued by this Court as well as the Apex Court owing to Covid-19 situation. That apart, the ground case in Crime No.694 of 2022 has been registered for offences under Sections 4(1)(aaa) and 4(1-A) of Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937 but in the similar case apart from the prohibition offences, offences under Rules 6 and 11 of Tamil Nadu Rectified Spirit Rules, 2000 has also been referred to and this reflects nonPage Nos.4/7
application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority in arriving at the subjective satisfaction. On this ground, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside.
7. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 11.10.2022 bearing reference CPT No.52 of 2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Karthick, aged 32 years, son of Arumugam 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, Puzhal.
Page Nos.5/7
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.6/7
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., gpa 05.04.2023 Page Nos.7/7