Murugan v. The Prl. Secretary To Govt.
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.07.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM and THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE A.M.BASHEER AHAMED H.C.P.(MD)No.847 of 2018 Murugan ... Petitioner Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort, St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District, 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, ... Respondents PRAYER: The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for entire records connected with the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.46/2018 dated 07.06.2018 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely, Murugan, aged about 25 years, son of Madasamy, now detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.V.Neelakandan, APP
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM,J.) The petitioner is the detenu - Murugan, son of Madasamy. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by the
impugned in M.H.S.Confdl.No.46/2018 dated 07.06.2018, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982.
2.Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that the Detaining Authority, while arriving at subjective satisfaction that at the time of passing detention order, no bail application is pending. However, the Detaining Authority has stated that there is real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by filing bail application, which, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, shows total non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority, which vitiates the order of detention.
3.We have considered the above submissions.
4.An identical issue was considered by a Division Bench of this Court in T.Chitra Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2014
(2) MLJ Crl 72 and the order of detention was set aside on the ground of non-application of mind. Hence, following the said order, the Detention Order, passed by the second respondent, in his proceedings in Detention Order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.46/2018 dated 07.06.2018, is quashed. The detenu, namely, Murugan, son of Madasamy, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in connection with any other case.
5. In the result, we allow the Habeas Corpus Petition. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (CS-I) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar(CS-III) To 1.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort, St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Tirunelveli District,
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
NBJ TE/RP/SAR-3 : 23/08/2018 : 3P/6C H.C.P.(MD)No.847 of 2018 24.07.2018