Nazima Begum v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.02.2025 CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR Nazima begum ... Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal Chennai 600 066 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Investigation Officer EDF-II, Central Crime Branch
5.The Inspector of Police K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station ... Respondents Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records relating to the detention order No.1151/BCDFGISSSV/2024, dated 23.11.2024, passed by the 2nd respondent and to produce the petitioner's brother Mohamed Nishath, S/o.Mohamed Moshin, aged about 36 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai 600066, before this Court and set the petitioner's brother at liberty. For Petitioner : Mr.K.Subburaj for M/s.C.M.Ramakrishnan For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor assisted by Mr.M.Sylvestor John
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J.
AND N.SENTHILKUMAR , J.
The petitioner, sister of the detenu viz. Mohamed Nishath, aged about 36 years, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.11.2024 slapped on her
brother, branding her as "GOONDA" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982].
2. Mr.K.Subburaj, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun V. The State of Maharashtra and others case. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor by filing counter objected to the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.
3.Among the various grounds raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the occurrence in the ground case had happened within the house of the complainant, it cannot be termed as 'to create alarm and feeling of insecurity' in the minds of the people and could not be prejudicial to the manner of public order. Such a submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and also
supported by a recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Arjun V. The State of Maharashtra and others in Criminal Appeal No... of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.)No.12516 of 2024), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
".......
15.As to whether a case would amount to threat to the public order or as to whether it would be such which can be dealt with by the ordinary machinery in exercise of its powers of maintaining law and order would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. For example, if somebody commits a brutal murder within the four corners of a house, it will not be amounting to a threat to the public order. ......." (emphasis supplied).
4.In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the offence in the ground case was committed within the house of the complainant. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Arjun V. The State of Maharashtra and others case, we are of the view that the detaining authority was not correct in coming to the subjective satisfaction that by involving himself in the crime, the convict prisoner had not acted in a
manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. Hence, on the above grounds, the Detention Order is liable to be quashed.
5. In view of the aforesaid reason, the detention order passed by the 2nd respondent dated 23.11.2024 in No.1151/BCDFGISSSV/2024, is hereby set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Mohamed Nishath, S/o.Mohamed Moshin, aged about 36 years, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
[M.S.R, J.] [N.S, J.] 17.02.2025 (4/6) kas Index : Yes / No To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition & Excise Department Secretariat Fort St. George Chennai 600 009
M.S.RAMESH , J.
and N.SENTHILKUMAR, J.
kas 2.The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai 3.The Superintendent of Police Central Prison Puzhal Chennai 600 066 4.The Assistant Commissioner of Police Investigation Officer EDF-II, Central Crime Branch 5.The Inspector of Police K-3, Aminjikrai Police Station 6.The Public Prosecutor High Court of Madras Chennai 600 108 17.02.2025 (4/6)