V. Gomathi v. The Commissioner Of Police
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.02.2020
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN H.C.P.No.2344 of 2019 V.Gomathi ..Petitioner/Wife of the Detenue Vs 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009.
... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records of the first respondent in BCDFGISSSV No.539 of 2019 dated 29.08.2019 and set aside the same and direct the first respondent to produce the detenu Dilli @ Vijayakumar, son of Munusamy, aged 28 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.C.D.Johnson For Respondents :
Mr.R.Prathap Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of this Court was made by R.SUBBIAH, J] Petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz. Dilli @ Vijayakumar, S/o. Munusamy, aged 28 years, who has been branded as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of first respondent passed in Memo No.539/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 29.08.2019.
2. The alleged ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.577 of 2019 on the file of Thiruvanmiyur Police Station for offences u/s. 341, 294(b), 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present writ petition has been filed.
1/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
3. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for respondents. Perused the materials on record.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in the case cited as similar, the offence alleged was under Sections 457 and 380 IPC, whereas the ground case has been registered against the detenu under Sections 341, 294(b), 397, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. The non-consideration of such aspect reflects nonapplication of mind.
5. We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.
6. As rightly submitted by learned counsel for petitioner,the similar case referred to and relied upon by the Detaining Authority to infer that the detenu would be granted bail in the ground case, is not a similar case. Hence, we find that the order of detention suffers from non-application of mind.
Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the detention order passed by the first respondent against the detenu viz., Dilli @ Vijayakumar, S/o. Munusamy in Memo No.539/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 29.08.2019, is set aside. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case. Sd/- Assistant Registrar(C.S.VIII) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai.
2.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, Chennai-600 009.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order) Department, Fort St.George, Chennai.
5.The Public Prosecutor,High Court, Madras.
Akm/04.03.2020 /2p-6c/ H.C.P.No.2344 of 2019 2/2 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/