Ravi v. The State Rep.By Its
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 02.01.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN H.C.P.No.2968 of 2024 Ravi ... Petitioner/father of the detenu Vs.
1.The State rep by its Government of Tamilnadu, rep. By its The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, 4.The Inspector of Police, H-4, Korkkupet Police Station, ... Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, or any other appropriate writ order or direction in the nature of writ, calling for the records in Detention order passed in No.861/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 on the file of the 2nd Respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce petitioner's son Detenue Thiru, Ranjith @ Anil Ranjith, S/o. Ravi, M/A24 yrs now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Honble Court and set him at Liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.D.Padmanabhan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.) The order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.861/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is sought to be quashed in the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents.
3. The impugned Detention order has been issued based on three adverse cases. It is not in dispute that the ground case is relatable to personal motive between the detenu and the other group. Such cases involving personal motive or vengeance cannot be said to affect the public order. The likelihood of breaching public order being the element to be considered for invoking the Act 14 of 1982. All other cases can be dealt with under the ordinary law.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents would submit that the cases registered are relating to group dispute.
5. That being so, the respondents shall dealt with cases by conducting investigation and filing charge sheets. If at all, bail is granted, the Police authorities may file a petition for cancellation of bail or imposing conditions. However, the Preventive Detention law may not be required in such nature of cases as there is no element of likelihood of causing breach of public order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the detention order.
6.Accordingly, the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in No.861/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 21.08.2024 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed. The detenue, namely, Ranjith @ Anil Ranjith, S/o.Ravi, male, aged about 24 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless he is otherwise required in connection with any other case.
[S.M.S., J.] [M.J.R., J.] 02.01.2025 (1/2) Index :
Yes/No Speaking Order :
Yes/No :
Yes/No kak To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal,
4.The Inspector of Police, H-4, Korkkupet Police Station, 5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court.
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.
AND M.JOTHIRAMAN , J.
kak H.C.P.No.2968 of 2024 (1/2) 02.01.2025