Uthirakumar M v. State Of Tamilnadu
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 18.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Uthirakumar S/o.Radhakrishnan .. Petitioner/cousin brother of Detenu Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep by the Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O), K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai 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 records relating to the Page Nos.1/16
detention order vide Memo No.329/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 20.09.2022 passed by the second respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's cousin brother, namely, Senthilkumaran, Son of Sundaravadivel, aged 38 years (who is presently undergoing detention in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai) before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.A.P.Sathyamurthy 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 M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of brevity] has been filed by cousin brother of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 20.09.2022 bearing reference 329/BCDFGISSSV/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.2/16
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 is no adverse case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.297 of 2022 on the file of K-8 Arumbakkam Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 342, 397 read with 120(B) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and subsequently altered into Sections 342, 395, 397 and 412 of IPC. 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.A.P.Sathyamurthy, learned counsel 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. Page Nos.3/16
5. We are informed that co-accused in the ground case (Balaji) was clamped with similar preventive detention order, the same was challenged before this Court vide H.C.P.No.2060 of 2022 and HCP was allowed by an order dated 11.04.2023 made by this Court, which reads as follows: Page Nos.4/16
Page Nos.5/16
Page Nos.6/16
Page Nos.7/16
Page Nos.8/16
Page Nos.9/16
Page Nos.10/16
Page Nos.11/16
Page Nos.12/16
6. The same point on which the aforementioned HCP is allowed is available to the petitioner in the case on hand also. The most relevant paragraph in the impugned preventive detention order is as follows: Page Nos.13/16
'After the Police custody, on 22.08.2022, the Inspector of Police produced again the accused Thiru.Balaji and Thiru.Santhoshkumar before the Court of learned Vth Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai - 600 008 and they were remanded to judicial custody. Further, their remand period was extended till 26.09.2022.'
Therefore it follows as an inevitable sequitur that captioned HCP also has to be allowed.
7. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 20.09.2022 bearing reference 329/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Senthilkumaran, aged 38 years, son of Thiru.Sundaravadivel, now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in connection with any other case/s. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.S.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 18.04.2023 (4/5) Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking rsi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
To Page Nos.14/16
1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Office of the Commissioner of Police, Chennai District.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai District.
4.The Inspector of Police (L & O), K-8, Arumbakkam Police Station, Chennai District.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.15/16
M.SUNDAR, J.
and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.
rsi 18.04.2023 (4/5) Page Nos.16/16