IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 03.04.2017 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU and THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE ANITA SUMANTH H.C.P No.1926 of 2016 Muniyammal ...Petitioner Vs
1. State of Tamil Nadu represented by its Secretary, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Commissioner's Office, Egmore, Chennai .. 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 of the detention order No.700/BCDFGISSSV2016 dated 15.07.2016 on the file of the second respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body of the detenue Manoj @ Manoj Chakravarthi S/o Sekar @ Thotam, detained in Central Prison, Puzhal and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr. L. Infant Dinesh For respondents : Mr.V.M.R. Rajentren Addl. Public Prosecutor ORDER (Order of the Court was made by S. NAGAMUTHU,J.,) The petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu Manoj @ Manoj Chakravarthi , has come up with this habeas corpus petition, challenging the detention order passed against Manoj @ Manoj Chakravarthi by the second respondent, vide proceedings No..700/BCDFGISSSV2016 dated 15.07.2016
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.251 of 2016 and 305/2016 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.251/2016 and 305/2016.
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.251/2016 and 305/2016 on the file of D.4, Zam Bazaar 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 15.07.2016, 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.
Index : Yes/no Internet : Yes/no sr (S.N.J.,) (A.S.M.J.,) 03-04-2017 To
1. The Secretary, State of Tamil Nadu, Home Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai – 600 009
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Commissioner's Office, Egmore, Chennai
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai.
S.NAGAMUTHU,J.
And
ANITA SUMANTH,J.,
sr Order in H.C.P.No.1926 of 2016 03-04-2017 http://www.judis.nic.in