IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.01.2017 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.No.1520 of 2016 Ravathi .. Petitioner Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu, represented by Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai. .. Respondents Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue 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 Memo No.632/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 2.7.2016 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu, Suriyaprakash @ Soori, son of Sukumar, aged about 36 years, detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Court and to set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mr.G.Nirmalkrishnan For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, APP ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Suriyaprakash @ Soori, aged about 36 years, son of Sukumar, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.632/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 2.7.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.
2. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.
3. Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned detention order mainly on the ground that the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.4 of the order of detention, that the detenu, Suriyaprakash @ Soori is in remand, in T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime Nos.1727/2015, 1349/2016, 1448/2016 and 1450/2016 and he had moved a bail application, for Crime No.1450 of 2016, which is the ground case, before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur, in Crl.M.P.No.3540/2016, which is pending. It had been further stated in the order of detention that the detenu had not filed bail applications in respect of Crime Nos.1727/2015, 1349/2016 and 1448/2016, which are the three adverse cases, so far. However, in the order of detention, it had been stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, by filing bail applications, for T-1 Ambathur Police Station Crime Nos.1727/2015, 1349/2016 and 1448/2016, before the appropriate court. It had also been pointed out that no statements had been recorded from the relatives of the detenu with regard to the claim that they are taking steps to move bail applications, on behalf of the detenu, in the above said cases and no such statements had been furnished to the detenu.
4. The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.
5. It is noted from the records available that no statements had been recorded from the relatives concerned to substantiate the claim that they are taking steps to move bail applications on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in Crime Nos.1727/2015, 1349/2016 and 1448/2016, on the file of T.1 Ambathur Police Station, which are the three adverse cases. In such circumstances, we find that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.
6. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 2.7.2016, 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.
[M.J.,J.] [T.M.,J.] 02.01.2017 vvk To
1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
M.JAICHANDREN,J.
AND T.MATHIVANAN, J.
vvk H.C.P.No.1520 of 2016 02.01.2017