Keerthika v. The State Of Tamil Nadu,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 24.04.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR Keerthika W/o.Ajith .. Petitioner Vs.
1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai.
4.
The Inspector of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station Chennai-600 007.
..
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 made in No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 22.10.2022 on the file of 2nd respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and direct the respondent to produce detenu viz., Ajesh @ Ajith, son of Gopi (late) aged about 22 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.S.Senthilvel representing Mr.V.Arunkumar For Respondents :
Mr.E.Raj Thilak Additional Public Prosecutor
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 wife of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 22.10.2022 bearing reference No.386/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 the 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, 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 are four adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which is the sole substratum of the impugned detention order is Crime No.280 of 2022 on the file of V-5 Thirumangalam Police Station for the alleged offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. 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.3/8
4. Mr.S.Senthilvel, learned counsel representing the counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.E.Raj Thilak, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
5. Though several grounds have been urged in the support affidavit, learned counsel for petitioner at the hearing exhorted one point in his campaign against the impugned detention order and that one point turns on delay in considering a representations sent qua impugned detention order.
6. Responding to the aforementioned submission, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor submitted to the contrary and placed before us a list of dates and the details of the same are as follows: Page Nos.4/8
7. We find that even if the intervening 6 public/Government holidays 12.11.2022, 13.10.2022, 10.12.2022, 11.12.2022, 17.12.2022 and 18.12.2022 are excluded, there is a delay of 2 days and 8 days in considering the representations. We make it clear that the delay in considering the representation point in challenges to preventive detention orders cannot be decided quantitatively. It has to be decided qualitatively based on the facts, circumstances and the trajectory the representation has taken, in other words, it has to be decided on case to case basis. In the case on hand, we adopt such an approach and we find that 2 days and 8 days delay vitiates the impugned detention order. We also hasten to make it clear that there can be no straight jacket formula in terms of number of days as regards this point is concerned and therefore, this order will not serve as precedent in all and every case where delay in considering representation qua a preventive detention order is raised.
8. Before concluding, we also remind ourselves that preventive detention is not a punishment and HCP is a high prerogative writ. Page Nos.5/8
9. Apropos, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 22.10.2022 bearing reference No.386/BCDFGISSSV/2022 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Ajesh @ Ajith, aged 22 years, son of Thiru.Gopi, 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.) 24.04.2023 Index : Yes Speaking mk P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
Page Nos.6/8
To 1.
The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Principal Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai-600 009.
2.
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai.
3.
The Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal Chennai.
4.
The Inspector of Police V-5, Thirumangalam Police Station Chennai-600 007.
5.
The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
Page Nos.7/8
M.SUNDAR, J., and M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., mk 24.04.2023 Page Nos.8/8