Madras High Court
Miniraj vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 November, 2018
Author: C.T.Selvam
Bench: C.T.Selvam, S.Ramathilagam
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM
and
THE HONOURABLE Mrs.JUSTICE S.RAMATHILAGAM
H.C.P. No.1972 of 2018
Miniraj ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1.The State of Tamil Nadu
Rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ...Respondents
PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a
Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the entire records, relating to Petitioner's
husband detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated
14.08.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings
No.714/BCDFGISSSV/2018 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct
the respondents herein to produce the said Petitioner's husband namely Kamaraj
@ Rajan, son of Doss, aged 42 years before this Hon'ble High Court and set the
Petitioner's husband at liberty from detention, now Petitioner's husband detained
at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai - 600 066.
For Petitioner : Mr.C.C.Chellappan
For Respondents : Mr.R.Prathap Kumar
Additional Public Prosecutor
http://www.judis.nic.in ***
2
ORDER
[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.] The petitioner, who is the wife of the detenu, namely, Kamaraj @ Rajan, Son of Dass, age 42 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 14.08.2018 in No.714/BCDFGISSSV/2018 detaining him as "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).
2. The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following case:-
S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law
1. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 457 and 511 IPC Crime No.1893/2017
2. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.90/2018
3. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police 454 and 380 IPC Station Crime No.137/2018
4. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.185/2018
5. T-10 Thirumullaivoyal Police 457 and 380 IPC Station Crime No.388/2018
6. T-7 Tank Factory Police Station 454 and 380 IPC Crime No.275/2018
7. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 380 IPC Crime No.378/2018
8. T-6 Avadi Police Station 457 and 511 IPC Crime No.379/2018 http://www.judis.nic.in 9. T-6 Avadi Police Station 454 and 380 IPC 3 S.No. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law Crime No.461/2018 The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.488/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, T-6 Avadi Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in Memo No.714/BCDFGISSSV/2018 on 14.08.2018.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.
4. Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.
5. The Grounds of Detention would reveal that the adverse cases have been registered against the detenu and a ground case was registered against him in Cr.No.488/2018 for the offences under section 341, 294(b), 336, 427, 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Admittedly, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the 4, 7, 8 and 9 adverse cases in Crime Nos.185/2018, 378/2018, 379/2018 and 461/2018. Therefore, the probability of release of the detenu imminently does not http://www.judis.nic.in arise. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the detention order. Though the 4 detaining authority has made reliance on similar case, in which an accused was granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied mechanically. Normally, bails are granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case plea, cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind.
6. In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.714/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 14.08.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Kamaraj @ Rajan, Son of Dass, aged about 42 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.
[C.T.S., J] [S.R.T., J]
28.11.2018
Index : Yes/no
Speaking/Non Speaking Order
pds
http://www.judis.nic.in
5
C.T.SELVAM, J
AND
S.RAMATHILAGAM, J.,
pds
To:
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition & Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary Public (Law and order) Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1972 of 2018
28.11.2018 http://www.judis.nic.in