Allowed

Arokia Selvi v. Incharge Commissioner of

Madras HC12 Apr 2011HCP(MD)/44/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Habeas Corpus petition challenged a detention order passed under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1982. The High Court set aside the order, holding that there was no cogent material and the reason given was improper as the detenu was complying with previous bail conditions.

What did the court decide?

The detention order is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Arokia Selvi Vs Incharge Commissioner of — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2011)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 12.04.2011

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.RAJESWARAN and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.M.AKBAR ALI H.C.P.(MD)No.44 of 2011

Arokia Selvi

... Petitioner

Vs.

1.Incharge Commissioner of Police, Trichirapalli City, Trichirapalli.

¶10

2.The State

¶11

Rep.by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,

¶12

Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶13

3.The Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, Trichirapalli.

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: The Habeas Corpus petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus, directing the respondents herein to produce the detenue Guna @ Gunasekaran son of Arumaidoss who has been termed as "Drug Offender" who is now confined in Central Prison, Trichy and call for records in C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.73/2010 dated 18.12.2010 passed by the 1^st respondent.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Senthil Kumar For Respondents : Mr.M.Daniel Manoharan,APP

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

(Order of this Court was made by G.M.AKBAR ALI,J.)

¶19

The petitioner is the wife of the detenue viz., Guna @ Gunasekaran. Challenging an Order of Detention made by the 1^st respondent in C.P.O/T.C./I.S./ D.O.No.73/2010 dated 18.12.2010 branding the detenu as a “Drug Offender” under the provisions 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 of 1982), this Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the petitioner.

¶20

2.The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the detenue was already detained on an earlier detention order of the similar offence and has been released on 22.09.2010 by an order in H.C.P.No.672 of 2010 and as soon as he came out on detention, the present detention order was passed against him. The learned counsel https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ also pointed out that while the detenue was complying with the

¶21

¶22

earlier bail condition, has been detained. The learned counsel pointed out that during that period, he has not committed any offence and in spite of that an illegal order has been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner also pointed that the detaining authority has not applied his mind when he was considering the bail applications moved by the detenue where the prosecution themself said no objection for those bail applications.

¶23

3.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the detenue is an habitual offender and only on the ground case dated 27.10.2010 he was detained.

¶24

4.We have carefully considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records.

¶25

5.Admittedly, the detenue was released from the earlier detention order in H.C.P.No.672 of 2010 on 22.09.2010. While considering the bail application in the ground case, the detaining authority has observed as follows:

¶26

"5.I am aware that Guna @ Gunasekaran was remanded in Palakkarai P.S.Cr.No.1688/2010. He has moved a bail application before the Court and bail was granted by the Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Special Court for E.C. Act cases. Pudukkottai in Crl.M.P.No.1573/2010 dated 08.12.2010 and enlarged on bail. If he is allowed to remain at large, he will further indulge in such activities in future, which will be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health."

¶27

6.However, the fact remains that in all the previous cases, the prosecution has said no objection for granting bail. It is admitted that while the detenue was complying with the bail condition, he was again detained. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there was no cogent material available for the detaining authority to apply his mind and the reason given in paragraph 5 of the detention order is also not proper.

¶28

7.Accordingly, the detention order

¶29

C.P.O/T.C./I.S./D.O.No.73/2010 dated 18.12.2010 passed by the 1^st respondent is set aside and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶30

Sd/-

¶31

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶32

/True Copy/

¶33

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

3
To
1.Incharge Commissioner of Police, Trichirapalli City, Trichirapalli.
2.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3.The Inspector of Police, Palakkarai Police Station, Trichirapalli.
4.The Superintendent of Central Prison, Tiruchirapalli
5.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and order), Fort St.George, Chennai 9.
6. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai
H.C.P.(MD)No.44 of 2011 12.04.2011
nbj SMA/28.4.2011/7C/3P

¶36

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

Arokia Selvi v. Incharge Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arokia Selvi v. Incharge Commissioner of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner Vs V.S. Kuppanna Gounter

Pappathi Ammal Vs Superintendent of Police

Ilayaraja Vs the Inspector of Police

Jeyanthi Vs the Inspector of Police

M. Paneerselvam Vs the Superintendent of Police

A.Rajammal Vs the Secretary