Backiyaselvi v. The Additional Chief Secretary To The Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.1783 of 2022 Backiyaselvi .. Petitioner /wife of the detenu Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of police Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli District 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Coimbatore .. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to the detention order in No.78/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 23.09.2022 passed by the 2nd respondent and set aside the same by setting the detenu by namely Ramamoorthy, S/o.Sathivel aged 25/2022 years and set him at liberty, now
detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sivabalan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner is wife of the detenu viz., Ramamoorthy, aged about 25 years, S/o.Sathivel. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order in No.78/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 23.09.2022 holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that the detaining authority after being aware of the fact that there was no bail application filed by the detenu came to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the order passed in Crl.M.P.No.2498/2019. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority was not a similar and on that score, the detention order is liable to be interfered with.
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter. He would further submit that in the present case, on completion of investigation, charge sheet has been filed in SC.No.132/2022 and the same is pending before the II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.
5. On carefully going through the detention order, the detaining authority was aware of the fact that no bail application was filed by the detenu. However, the detaining authority took into consideration the order
passed in Crl.M.P.No.2498/2019 and came to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Perusal of the order shows that the accused therein was released on bail on the ground that co-accused was released on bail. However, in the present case, the co-accused are still in jail and hence, the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be a similar one.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.78/BCDFGISSSV/2022 dated 23.09.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Ramamoorthy S/o.Sathivel, aged about 25 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case. (M.S.R.,J.) (M.N.K.,J.) 12.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes RR
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of police Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli 3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison,Coimbatore 4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
M.S.RAMESH, J.
and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
RR H.C.P.(MD)No.1783 of 2022 12.07.2023