Madras High Court
Ranjitha vs State Of Tamil Nadu on 20 December, 2019
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
B E F O R E T H E MADU R AI B E N C H O F MADRA S HI GH C O U R T
DATED : 20.12.2019
CORAM
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E T.R A J A
A ND
T H E HO N O U R A B L E MR. J U S T I C E B . P U G A L E N DHI
H. C. P(MD)N o. 7 0 3 o f 2 0 1 9
Ranjitha ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
rep. by Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Trichirappalli District,
Trichirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thathiengarpettai Police Station,
Trichirappalli District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli. ... Respondents
Prayer : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance
of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records relating to the Detention
Order passed by the 2nd Respondent in Detention Order dated 23.06.2019 in
Detention Order in Cr.M.P.No.30/2019 and to quash the same and direct the
Respondents to produce the person or body of the detenu, Balasubramanian,
http://www.judis.nic.in
1/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
S/o.Palaniyandi, aged about 28 years, before this Hon'ble Court and set him at
liberty, now detained at Central Prison, Tiruchirappalli.
For Petitioner : Mr.S.Deenadhayalan
For Respondents : Mr.K.Dinesh Babu
Additional Public Prosecutor
*****
O RD E R
(Order of the Court was made by T. RA J A , J. )
The petitioner is the wife of the detenu viz. Balasubramanian and
challenging the legality of the impugned order of detention dated 23.06.2019,
passed by the second respondent, under Section 3(1) of Tamil Nadu Prevention
of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders,
Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Sexual
Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982, (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of
1982) and branding him as 'Sand Offender' in Cr.M.P.No.30/2019, came forward
to file the present Habeas Corpus Petition.
2.A perusal of the Grounds of Detention dated 23.06.2019, passed by
the 2nd respondent herein, would disclose among other things that the detenu,
viz.,Balasubramanian was involved in a solitary case for the commission of
http://www.judis.nic.in
2/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
offences under Sections 379, 353, 307 I.P.C. r/w 21(1) Mines and Minerals (D and
R) Act, 1957 in Thathiengarpettai Police Station Crime No.54 of 2019 (ground
case). The detenu was arrested on 17.06.2019 and produced before the Court of
Judicial Magistrate, Thuraiyur on the same day and remanded to Judicial custody.
The detaining authority on being satisfied with the materials placed by the
sponsoring authority that the activities of the detenu are prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order, clamped the order of detention and making a
challenge to the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the
petitioner.
3.We have heard Mr.S.Deenadhayalan, learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner and Mr.K.Dinesh Babu, learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents and perused the materials available on record.
4.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the
attention of this Court to page Nos.22 & 23 of the booklet and would submit
that after the arrest of the accused in ground case in Crime No.54 of 2019, the
arrest intimation was not communicated to the family members of the detenu
and though the arrest intimation was said to have been sent to the mobile No.
6382553442 through SMS, the person to whom the message was sent to the said
http://www.judis.nic.in
3/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
mobile number has not been identified and the signature of the concerned
person has also not been obtained and in the light of the non-communication of
the arrest intimation, the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court reported
in A I R ( 1 9 9 7 ) S C 6 1 0 [D. K . B a s u v . S t a t e o f W e s t B e n g a l] is
violated and as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.
5.In support of his submission, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner has relied on an unreported order of this Court d a t e d
0 7 . 0 6 . 2 0 1 9 made in H . C . P. ( M D ) N o . 2 6 o f 2 0 1 9 in the matter of
N at a r a j a n v . S t a t e o f Ta m i l N a d u , r e p . b y T h e P r i n c i p a l
S e c r eta r y to G ove r n m e nt a n d t w o o t h e r s , in which one of us
(B.PUGALENDHI, J) was a party. The relevant portion of the order runs thus:
“8.As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, perusal of page No.20 of the booklet would disclose
that though the arrest intimation was given to his wife/Kavitha
through mobile No.8012668200, neither the text of the intimation
given nor the signature of the person, has been found place, hence
the same is in violation of D. K . B a s u v . S t a t e o f W e s t B e n g a l
r e p ort e d in A I R ( 1 9 9 7 ) S C 6 1 0 and hence, on the sole ground,
the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.”
6.Though we have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor
appearing for the respondents, we are unable to find any explanation as to why
the arrest intimation was not communicated to the family members of the
http://www.judis.nic.in
4/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
detenu. Further, page No.23 of the booklet shows neither the text of the
intimation is given nor the signature of the person, who is said to have been
informed has been obtained. That clearly shows that the arrest intimation was
not given to the family members of the detenu, hence, the non-communication
of the arrest intimation violates the guidelines given by the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in A I R ( 1 9 9 7 ) S C 6 1 0 [D. K . B a s u v . S t a t e o f W e s t
B e n g a l] and as such, the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside.
7.The Hon'ble Apex Court in R e k h a v . S t a t e o f T. N . r e p o r t e d
i n ( 2 0 1 1 ) 5 S C C 2 4 4 has ruled that the preventive detention is, by nature
repugnant to democratic ideas and an anathema to the rule of law. No such law
exists in the USA and in England (except during war time). It may be mentioned
herein that in cases of preventive detention no offence is proved and the
justification of such detention is suspicion or reasonable probability, and there is
no conviction which can only be warranted by legal evidence. When the
detaining authority passes the order of detention on subjective satisfaction, as
per clause (3) of Article 22 the detenu is not entitled to a lawyer or the right to
be produced before a Magistrate within 24 hours of arrest. Such article excludes
the applicability of clauses (1) and (2). However, to prevent misuse of this
potentially dangerous power the law of preventive detention has to be strictly
construed and meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards, however
http://www.judis.nic.in
5/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
technical, is, in our opinion, mandatory and vital.
8.The exclusion of applicability of clauses (1) and (2) of Article 22 does
not mean that the arrest of detenu should not be informed to his family
members, which is s i n e q u a n o n , therefore, the non-compliance would vitiate
the very detention itself. Applying this ratio here, we hold that the non-
compliance of the mandatory condition that the family members of the detenu
should be informed of his arrest having not been done in this case, would vitiate
the very detention itself. Accordingly, on this sole ground, the detention order is
liable to fall.
9.In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed by setting aside
the Order of Detention passed by the second respondent herein, namely, the
District Collector, Tiruchirappalli District, Tiruchirappalli in Cr.M.P.No.30/2019
dated 23.06.2019. Consequently, the detenu, namely, Balasubramanian, son of
Palaniyandi, aged about 28 years, who is now detained at Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence [or]
custody [or] detention is required in connection with any other
case/proceedings.
[T.R. J. ,] [B. P. J. ,]
2 0.1 2.2 0 1 9
Index :Yes/No
Internet :Yes/No
sj
http://www.judis.nic.in
6/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
To
1.The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Fort St. George,
Chennai – 9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Trichirappalli District,
Trichirappalli.
3.The Inspector of Police,
Thathiengarpettai Police Station,
Trichirappalli District.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Tiruchirappalli.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court,
Madurai.
http://www.judis.nic.in
7/8
H.C.P(MD)No.703 of 2019
T. RA J A , J .
A ND B . P U G A L E N DHI , J .
sj H. C. P(MD)N o. 7 0 3 o f 2 0 1 9 2 0. 1 2. 2 0 1 9 http://www.judis.nic.in 8/8