Radhika v. State Of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED : 17.04.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Radhika W/o.Swaminathan .. Petitioner/Daughter of detenue Vs.

1.The State of Tamil Nadu Represented by its Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Tambaram

3. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police Somangalam Police Station Chennai .. Respondents Page Nos.1/8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records of the detention dated 15.10.2022 in detention order BCDFGISSSV No.164 of 2022 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the detenue Logeswari @ Esther W/o.Rajan, Hindu aged about 38 years, who is now confined in Special Prison for Women Central Prison, Puzhal before this Court and set her at liberty. For Petitioner :

Mr.S.Senthilvel for Mr.R.Subramanian 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 daughter of detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 15.10.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.164 of 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.2/8

2. Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drugoffenders, 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.179 of 2022 on the file of T-11, Somangalam Police Station was initially registered for an alleged offence under Section 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and thereafter, altered to 120B, 147, 148, 341 and 302 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.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.R.Muniyapparaj, learned State Additional Public Page Nos.3/8

Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John, learned counsel for all respondents are before us.

5. In the support affidavit very many grounds have been urged / raised but in the hearing Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel for petitioner predicated his campaign against the impugned preventive detention order on one point. To be noted, this one point found favour with us and there shall be an elaboration on the same infra.

6. One point urged by learned counsel for petitioner turns on Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 which statutorily prescribes that the grounds on which a person is detained pursuant to a preventive detention order should be communicated to the detenu as soon as may be but not later than five days from the date of detention. To be noted, Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 reads as follows:

'8. (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the State Government.'

Page Nos.4/8

7. In the case on hand the records before us bring to light that the impugned preventive detention order has been duly served to the detenu on 15.10.2022. This means that 15.10.2022 is the date of detention pursuant to impugned detention order and therefore the grounds on which the impugned preventive detention order has been made has to be served on the detenu on or before 19.10.2022 but it has been served on the detenu only on 21.10.2022. To be noted, we had the benefit of perusing the grounds booklet and a scanned reproduction of the relevant stamping therein is as follows:

8. As the aforesaid point turns heavily on records before us, learned Additional Public Prosecutor really does not have much of a say. There is a clear infraction of statutory requirements qua Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982. Page Nos.5/8

This infraction means that the impugned preventive detention order deserves to be dislodged.

9. To be noted, vide M.Shylaja Vs.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government and others reported in 2023/MHC/193, this bench has set out the operation of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 and had interfered with preventive detention orders on Section 8(1) infraction point. We reiterate this and apply the same principle in this case also.

10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 15.10.2022 bearing reference BCDFGISSSV No.164/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Tmt.Logeswari @Esthur, aged 38 years, wife of Thiru. Rajan (Late), now detained in Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Puzhal 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.) 17.04.2023 Index : Yes / No Speaking / Non-speaking gpa P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Special Prison for Women, Central Prison, Puzhal Page Nos.6/8

To

1. The Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai - 600 009

2. The Commissioner of Police Tambaram City Tambaram

3. The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for Women Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai

4. The Inspector of Police Somangalam Police Station Chennai

5. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

Page Nos.7/8

M.SUNDAR, J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J.

gpa 17.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8