Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Madras High Court
  4. /
  5. 2017
  6. /
  7. January

Kamatchi vs State Rep By The Secretary To Government And Others

Madras High Court|13 March, 2017
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 13.03.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No.2109 of 2016 Kamatchi ...Petitioner Vs
1. State Rep. By The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee High Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 .. Respondents Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ, order or Direction in the nature of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the detention order passed on 09.07.2016 vide Detention Memo No.662/BDFGISSSV/2016 passed by the second respondent herein quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son SATHISH alias AAMS SATHISH aged about 26 years branded as Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court.
For Petitioner : Mr. P.K. Murali For respondents : Mr.V.M.R. Rajendran Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu- SATHISH alias AAMS SATHISH has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against SATHISH alias AAMS SATHISH by the second respondent, vide proceedings No..662/BDFGISSSV/2016 daed 09.07.2016.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records carefully.
3. Though, several grounds were raised in the petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus on the ground that though there was no bail application pending in Crime Nos.701/2015, 926/2015 and 528 of 2016, the detaining authority has stated that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application, in which case there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. The learned counsel pointed out that to arrive at such a conclusion, there was no material placed before the detaining authority at all.
4. The learned Additional Public prosecutor would submit that in the Special report submitted by the Inspector of Police, there is a statement to the effect that the relatives of the detenu were taking steps to file bail application seeking bail in connection with the case in Crime Nos.701/2015, 926/2015 and 528 of 2016.
5. We have considered the above submissions.
Admittedly, as on the date of passing of the detention order, there was no application filed by the detenu seeking bail in Crime Nos.701/2015, 926/2015 and 528 of 2016 on the file of T.4, Maduravoyal Police Station. Though it is alleged that his relatives were taking steps to file an application for bail, there were no materials available before the detaining authority, except the report of the Inspector of Police. Even the report of the Inspector of Police does not spell out as to how he came to know that the relatives were taking steps to file application seeking bail. Full details as to who are those relatives, who were taking steps to file bail application also have not been mentioned. Thus, in our considered view, without making proper application of mind relating to these facts, the detaining authority has passed the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the same.
6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 09.07.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.
Speaking Order/Non Speaking Order Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no sr To
1. The Secretary to Government, Home, State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police, Poonamallee High Road, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007 (S.N.J.,) (A.S.M.J.,) 13-03-2017
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
ANITA SUMANTH,J.,
sr Order in H.C.P.No.2109 of 2016 13-03-2017
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Kamatchi vs State Rep By The Secretary To Government And Others

Court

Madras High Court

JudgmentDate
13 March, 2017
Judges
  • S Nagamuthu
  • Anita Sumanth