Angel v. The Addl Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 07.11.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL H.C.P. (MD) No.1192 of 2023 Angel .. Petitioner Vs.
1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
4.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
.. Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records relating to the detention order passed by the second respondent pertaining to the order made in H.S(M) Confdl.No.68/2023 dated 12.05.2023 and quash the same Page Nos.1/12
and direct the respondent to produce the body or person of the petitioner's husband namely Chandran, son of Sekar aged about 20 years who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Honble Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :
Mr.R.Karunanidhi For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity, convenience and clarity] was listed in the Admission Board before us on 05.10.2023 and we made the following order: Page Nos.2/12
2. The aforementioned Admission Board order captures all essentials that are imperative for appreciating this order and we would plunge into the legal drill of testing the impugned preventive detention order in the habeas legal drill on hand. Suffice to say that aforementioned Admission Board order dated 05.10.2023 shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. It means that the short forms, short references and Page Nos.3/12
abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant final order also.
3. Mr.R.Karunanidhi, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
4. In the final hearing today, learned counsel predicated his campaign against impugned preventive detention order on the point that the initial remand order qua ground case has been relied on by the detaining authority in the grounds of impugned preventive detention order but the same has not been furnished to the detenu causing infraction of constitutional right ingrained in Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
5. Elaborating on the aforementioned point, learned counsel drew our attention to a portion of paragraph No.8 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows: '.....8. I am aware that the accused Chandran was arrested in the ground case on 16.04.2023 and produced Page Nos.4/12
before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.111., Thoothukudi on the same day and forwarded to judicial custody up to 28.04.2023 and lodged in Thoothukudi District Jail at Perurani.....'
Learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority has relied on the initial remand on 16.04.2023 but the same has not been furnished to the detenu as part of the grounds booklet.
6. In response to the aforementioned argument, learned Prosecutor submitted that the order extending the remand after the initial order of remand has been furnished to the detenu.
7. We carefully considered the rival submissions. In considering the rival submissions, we find that a similar/same point was dealt with by us in R.Selvi Vs. The Additional Cheif Secretary to Government and others High Court).
Page Nos.5/12
8. A scanned reproduction of Selvi's case as reported in 2023/MHC/4778 is as follows:
Page Nos.6/12
Page Nos.7/12
Page Nos.8/12
Paragraphs 6 to 8 in Selvi's case constitute the crux and gravamen of the issue in the legal drill on hand.
9. In the light of Selvi's case principle, we have no hesitation in sustaining the submission of learned counsel for HCP petitioner that the sanctus constitutional right of the detenu which has been ingrained in Article 22(5) by way of a Constitutional safeguard has been breached. Page Nos.9/12
10. Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 12.05.2023 bearing reference H.S(M) Confdl.No.68/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Chandran, male, aged 20 years, son of Thiru.Sekar is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case / cases. There shall be no order as to costs. (M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 07.11.2023 Index : Yes/No PKN P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified hard copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code. Page Nos.10/12
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
4.The Inspector of Police, North Police Station, Thoothukudi District.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
6. The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
Page Nos.11/12
M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J., PKN 07.11.2023 Page Nos.12/12