Chinrasu Alias Dineshkumar v. The Additional Chief Secretary To Government

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 19.07.2023

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR H.C.P.(MD)No.2129 of 2022 Chinrasu alias Dineshkumar .. Petitioner/Detenu Vs.

1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector and District Magistrate's Office, Thanjavur District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.

.. Respondents PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records, connected with the detention order of the Respondent No.2 in P.D.No.155/2022 dated 11.11.2022 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the

body or person of the detenu by name Chinrasu alias Dineshkumar, son of Karunanithi, aged about 35 years, now detained as 'Goonda' at Trichy Central Prison before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith. For Petitioner : Mr.R.Alagumani For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadikumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

(Order of the Court was made by M.S.RAMESH,J.) The petitioner is the detenu viz., Chinrasu alias Dineshkumar, S/o.Karunanithi, aged about 35 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in P.D.No.155/2022 dated 11.11.2022 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. Among other grounds, the detention order is mainly attacked on the ground that there is a delay in passing the order of detention. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strongly contended that though the detenu was arrested on 02.10.2022, the detention order was passed only on 11.11.2022, i.e., after a considerable delay of 40 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 02.10.2022, the order of detention came to be passed only on 11.11.2022 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 P.D.No.155/2022 dated 11.11.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Chinrasu alias Dineshkumar, S/o.Karunanithi, aged about 35 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.) 19.07.2023 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Lm/mbi To 1.The Additional Chief Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Chennai - 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, District Collector and District Magistrate's Office, Thanjavur District.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Trichy Central Prison, Trichy District.

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Chennai.

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

M.S.RAMESH,J.

and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.

Lm/mbi H.C.P.(MD)No.2129 of 2022 19.07.2023