S.Guna Sekaran v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 07.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.1842 of 2022 S.Gunasekaran .. Petitioner /brother of the detenu Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Karur, Karur District 3.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for women, Trichy.
5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District .. Respondents
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.13/2022 passed by the second respondent dated 24.08.2022 against the petitioner's brother Senthilkumar, S/o.Shanmugam aged about 50 years, who is confined at Central Prison Tiruchirappalli and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.E.K.Kumaresan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH, J.) The petitioner is the brother of the detenu viz., Senthilkumar, aged about 50 years, S/o.Shanmugam. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in detention order in Cr.M.P.No.13/2022 dated 24.08.2022 holding him to be a "Sexual Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(ggg) 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.Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 16.07.2022, the detention order was passed only on 24.08.2022 i.e., after a considerable delay of more than 35 days. Therefore, the detention order has to be set aside.
4.As seen from the grounds of detention, it is clear that though the detenu was arrested on 16.07.2022, the order of detention came to be passed only on 24.08.2022 and hence, there is an abnormal delay in passing the order of Detention, which caused prejudice to the interest of the detenu. 5.We have gone through the entire materials placed on record. There is no satisfactory explanation offered by the Detaining Authority for the delay in passing the order of detention. Hence the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Cr.M.P.No.13/2022 dated 24.08.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Senthilkumar S/o.Shanmugam, aged about 50 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.) 07.07.2023 NCC : Yes/No Internet : Yes RR To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate Karur, Karur District 3.The Superintendent of Police, Karur District, Karur.
4.The Superintendent of Prison Special Prison for women, Trichy.
5.The Inspector of Police, All Women Police Station, Kulithalai, Karur District 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.1842 of 2022 07.07.2023