Tamilpriya v. The 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 Tamilpriya .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. By its Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Team, Special Investigation Team Office, Kallakurichi 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 leading to the detention of the petitioner's husband namely Page Nos.1/14
Vijay, S/o.Kumar, aged about 26 years, detained under Section 2(f) of the Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 26.09.2022 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings in D.O.No.C2/59/2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the said detenu before this Court and thereafter set him at liberty from Central Prison at Cuddalore. For Petitioner :
Ms.M.Benazir Begum For Respondents :
Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvester John
ORDER
[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 the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/59/2022' [hereinafter 'impugned detention order' for the sake of convenience and brevity]. To be noted, fifth 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 Page Nos.2/14
offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, 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. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.237 of 2022 on the file of Chinna Salem Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 353, 436, 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 subsequently altered into one under Sections 147, 148, 294(b), 323, 324, 332, 353, 436, 506(ii) and 109 of IPC read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of Tamil Nadu Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992. 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.3/14
4. Ms.M.Benazir Begum, learned counsel on record 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.
5. Today in the final hearing, we are informed by both sides that another accused (Parameshwaran) in the same chain of incidents was clamped with a preventive detention order similar to the impugned preventive detention order. In the case of the other accused namely Thiru.Parameshwaran, his spouse S.Bhavani challenged the similar preventive detention order vide H.C.P. No.1957 of 2022 and after full contest, the same was allowed by this Court vide order dated 30.03.2023 which is reported in neutral citation of this Court in website is as follows:
Page Nos.4/14
Page Nos.5/14
Page Nos.6/14
Page Nos.7/14
Page Nos.8/14
Page Nos.9/14
Page Nos.10/14
Page Nos.11/14
6.
It is the further submission of learned counsel for petitioner that the point on which H.C.P. No.1957 of 2022 was allowed i.e., similar bail order not translated though it has been relied on in the impugned preventive detention order, is available to the detenu in the instant case also. This by itself concludes the matter as inevitable sequitur is impugned detention order also deserves to be dislodged. We are reminded of the age old adage 'Sauce to Goose is sauce to Gander too'.
7. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 26.09.2022 bearing reference D.O.No.C2/59/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Vijay, aged 26 years, son of Thiru.Kumar, 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.) 17.04.2023 Index : Yes mmi P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Cuddalore.
Page Nos.12/14
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi, Kallakurichi District.
5.The Inspector of Police, Special Investigation Team, Special Investigation Team Office, Kallakurichi District.
6.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.13/14
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR , J., mmi 17.04.2023 Page Nos.14/14