Arokiyamari v. The Additional 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.1193 of 2023 Arokiyamari .. 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, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
.. 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.36/2023 dated 27.02.2023 in detaining the detenu under 2(ggg) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 as a Sexual Offender and quash the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Page Nos.1/12
Devaraj, son of Petchimuthu aged about 32 years who is detained at Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Honble Court and set him at liberty. For Petitioner :
Mr.S.S.Sundarapandian 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 04.10.2023 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 04.10.2023 shall now be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. It means that the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the Admission Board order will continue to be used in the instant final order also.
Page Nos.3/12
3. Mr.S.S.Sundarapandian, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
4. As would be evident from paragraph 5 of the aforementioned Admission Board order dated 04.10.2023, at the time of admission, learned counsel for HCP petitioner posited his argument on the point that Tamil translation of some of the documents relied on have not been furnished but today, in the final hearing board, learned counsel for petitioner changed his line of attack and 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.6 of the grounds of impugned preventive detention order which reads as follows: Page Nos.4/12
'.....6. I am aware that the accused Devaraj was arrested in the ground case on 01.02.2023 and he was produced before the Sessions Judge Special Court for Exclusive Trial of cases under POCSO Act, Thoothukudi on 02.02.2023 and forwarded to Judicial Custody up to 16.02.2023 and he is lodged in Thoothukudi District Jail at Perurani.....'
Learned counsel submitted that the detaining authority has relied on the initial remand on 02.02.2023 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 Page Nos.5/12
High Court).
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 27.02.2023 bearing reference H.S(M) Confdl.No.36/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Devaraj, male, aged 32 years, son of Thiru.Petchimuthu 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.
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, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent Central Prison, Palayamkottai.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
5. 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