Madras High Court
Satheeshkumar vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 3 July, 2023
Bench: M.S.Ramesh, M.Nirmal Kumar
HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.07.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
H.C.P.(MD)No.1440 of 2022
Satheeshkumar .. Petitioner /detenu
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu
Represented by the Additional Chief Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tirunelveli District,
Tirunelveli.
3.The Superintendent of Prison,
Central Prison,
Palayamkottai,
Tirunelveli. .. 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
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022
the detention order passed in M.H.S.Confdl.No.114/2022 dated 07.07.2022
on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct
the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely
Satheeshkumar, aged about 23 years, S/o.Subbaiah, now detained at the
Central Prison, Palayamkottai, before this Court and set him at liberty
forthwith.
For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan
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., Satheeshkumar aged about 23 years, S/o.Subbaiah. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in M.H.S.Confdl.No.114/2022 dated 07.07.2022 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.
Page 2 of 7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022
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. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would mainly focus his argument on the ground that the detaining authority after being aware of the fact that there was no bail application filed by the detenu came to the conclusion that there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail by relying upon the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.906/2020. The learned counsel therefore submitted that the order that was relied upon by the detaining authority was not similar and the offence involved is under Sections 148, 294(b), 302, 506(2), 109 IPC r/w 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act and Section 4 of Explosive Substance Act, 2014 and on that score, the detention order is liable to be interfered with.
Page 3 of 7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022
4. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor strongly opposed the Habeas Corpus Petition by filing his counter.
5. On carefully going through the detention order, the detaining authority was aware of the fact that no bail application was filed by the detenu. However, the detaining authority took into consideration the order passed in Cr.M.P.No.906/2020 and came to the conclusion that there is a likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail. Perusal of the order shows that since the final report has not been filed within the period stipulated either under Section 167(2) of CrPC, statutory bail was granted. However, in the present case, the FIR was registered for offences under Sections 294(b), 302 IPC and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and hence, the bail order that was relied upon by the detaining authority cannot be considered to be a similar one.
6. In view of the above, the detention order suffers from non application of mind and the same is liable to be interfered with by this Page 4 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022 Court. The impugned detention order is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
7. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in M.H.S.Confdl.No.114/2022 dated 07.07.2022 passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Satheeshkumar S/o.Subbaiah, aged about 23 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.)
03.07.2023
NCC : Yes / No
Index : Yes / No
Lm/RR
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, Tirunelveli District, Tirunelveli.
Page 5 of 7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022
3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
Page 6 of 7https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis HCP(MD)No.1440 of 2022 M.S.RAMESH,J.
and M.NIRMAL KUMAR,J.
Lm/RR H.C.P.(MD)No.1440 of 2022 03.07.2023 Page 7 of 7 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis