J.Anitha v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 11.12.2023 Coram THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL J.Anitha ... Petitioner/ wife of detenu vs 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
... Respondents Prayer:- 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 of the second respondent in H.S.(M) Confdl. No.80/2023 dated 10.07.2023 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the detenu namely Jeya Prem Singh, S/o.Rasal, aged about 42 years now detained as 'GOONDA' at Central Prison, Palayamkottai and set him at liberty forthwith. 1/15
For Petitioner :
Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents :
Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.] When the captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' [hereinafter 'HCP' for the sake of brevity] was listed before us on 03.11.2023, this Bench made the following order and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 2/15
2. The aforementioned 03.11.2023 order captures all essentials, i.e., all facts that are imperative for appreciating this final order and therefore, we are not setting out the facts again in this final order. Suffice to say that aforementioned order shall be read as an integral part and parcel of this final order. Be that as it may, we are using the short forms, short references and abbreviations used in the order dated 03.11.2023 in this order also for the sake of convenience and clarity. 3/15
3.Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel on record for petitioner and Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.
4.There are two adverse cases and one ground case. The ground case which constitutes substantial part of substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.71 of 2023 on the file of Thermalnagar Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 454, 457, 380 of IPC. Considering the nature of the challenge to the impugned preventive detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.
5.As would be evident from the Admission Board order, at the time of admission, learned HCP petitioner posited his argument qua challenge to the impugned preventive detention order on the ground that Tamil translation of remand order had not been furnished to the detenu. However, today learned counsel changed his line of attack and submitted that there is a straight forward infraction of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982. The detention order together with the rubber stamp of the jail authority showing the service of the same is as follows:
4/15
6.The last page of the index pages of the grounds booklet together with the rubber stamp is as follows: 5/15
The above would demonstrate that the impugned preventive detention order is dated 10.07.2023, it has been served on the detenu on 17.07.2023 (date of arrest pursuant to the impugned preventive detention order) but the grounds booklet has been served on the detenu only on 24.07.2023.
7.In support of his contention, learned counsel pressed into service an order made by a Division Bench of this Court in Vasanthi Vs. The Additional Cheif Secretary to Government and others reported in and a scanned reproduction of the same is as follows: 6/15
7/15
8/15
9/15
10/15
11/15
The aforesaid point turns heavily on the records before us and therefore, learned Prosecutor really does not have much of a say. 8.However, we deem it appropriate to make it clear that the question as to whether the date of arrest pursuant to the impugned preventive detention order i.e., the date on which the impugned preventive detention order is served on a detenu who is already in incarceration or the date on which the detenu is arrested pursuant to impugned preventive detention order should be taken into account for calculating the five days stipulated under Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 or as to whether the same has to be excluded is a question which has been considered by this Court in a batch of matter. In 12/15
the case on hand, either way it is well beyond five days and therefore, infraction of Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 is clear as daylight. Therefore, this is a fit case for interfering on Section 8(1) of Act 14 of 1982 point. We do so.
9.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned preventive detention order dated 10.07.2023 bearing reference H.S.(M) Confdl. No.80/2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Jeya Prem Singh, male, aged 42 years, son of Thiru.Rasal 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.) 11.12.2023 Index : Yes/No PKN Post Script: (i) Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai. (ii) All concerned to act on this order being uploaded in official website of this Court without insisting on certified copies. To be noted, this order when uploaded in official website of this Court will be watermarked and will also have a QR code.
13/15
To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Thoothukudi District, Thoothukudi.
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
14/15
M.SUNDAR, J.
and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.
PKN 11.12.2023 15/15