Quashed

Venkatesan v. the Secretary to the

Madras HC2 Jun 2014HCP/2053/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the petitioner, a friend of the detenu, to quash an order of detention under the Tamil Nadu Superstitious Beliefs (Prevention) Act. The Court found the detention order was passed mechanically without valid material regarding the detenu's likelihood of obtaining bail in specific crimes.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 13.08.2013 is quashed; the detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in any other case.

Venkatesan Vs the Secretary to the — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 02.06.2014

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶7

H.C.P. No.2053 of 2013

¶8

Venkatesan .. Petitioner
Vs.
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai. .. Respondents

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of habeas corpus, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent dated 13.08.2013 in Memo No.691/BDFGISSV/2013 against the petitioner's friend Vinothkumar, male, aged 38 years, S/o.Kabali, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel

¶11

For Respondents: Mr.P.Govindarajan,

¶12

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶13

ORDER

¶14

(Order of the Court was made by V.DHANAPALAN, J.)

¶15

The petitioner is the friend of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" as contemplated under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under order of the 2^nd respondent passed in BDFGISSV No.691/2013 dated 13.08.2013.

¶16

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶17

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

¶18

Sr.No.	Police Station and Cri	me No.	Sections of Law
1.	S-10, Pallikaranai Station, Crime No.810 of 2013	Police	379 IPC
2.	S-8, Adambakkam Station,	Police	380 IPC
	Crime No.663 of 2013
3.	S-12, Chitlapakkam Station, Crime No.956 of 2013	Police	379 IPC

¶19

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 21.07.2013 by the Inspector of Police, S-8 Adambakkam Police Station in Crime No.726 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 341, 336, 392, 427, 397 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶20

3.Though learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he mainly focused his argument on the ground that when there is no bail application filed on behalf of the detenu, nor by the relatives of the detenu, there is no imminent possibility of him being released on bail and therefore, the impugned order has been passed without any supporting material. He has contended that the copies of the orders in similar cases relied on by the detaining authority were not furnished to the detenu. For the above reasons, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed.

¶21

4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above point, who submits that the detenu has involved in serious offences and technical lapses cannot be the ground to quash the detention order.

¶22

5.On a careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the detaining authority, taking into account the imminent possibility of the detenu being enlarged on bail and the likelihood of the same is prejudicial to the public order and health, has passed the impugned detention order. It is pertinent to note here that the detenu has not moved bail applications in respect of the second and third adverse cases in Crime Nos.810 of 2013 and 956 of 2013. The bail application filed on 05.08.2013 in Crl.M.P.No.3140 of 2013 in respect of Crime No.726 of 2013 (ground case) before the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chengalpet is pending. But, the detaining authority has taken a decision to detain the detenu on the presumption that the relatives of the accused are taking steps to bail him out in the said crime numbers viz., Crime Nos.810 of 2013 and 956 of 2013 without any valid material in support thereof and passed the impugned order of detention in mechanical manner, which really shows non application of mind on the part of detaining

¶23

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

¶24

authority. Thus, for the reasons stated herein-above, the impugned detention order cannot be sustained.

¶25

6.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu, namely, Vinothkumar, S/o.Kabali, made in BDFGISSV No.691/2013 dated 13.08.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶26

7.However, in view of serious offences involved in this matter, it is open to the prosecution to effectively contest the matter before the Regular Court, uninfluenced by the above order. It is also made clear that this order shall not confer any right or advantage whatsoever to the detenu to claim anything before the Regular Court.

¶27

Sd/-
Asst. Registrar(CS-II)
dt. 16.6.14
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar.
mmi
To
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise
Department, Secretariat,Chennai – 9.
2.The Commissioner of Police,Chennai.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal II, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & order). Fort St. George, Chennai-9.
HCP No.2053 of 2013
PPA(CO)
Eu 17.6.14

¶28

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

Venkatesan v. the Secretary to the

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesan v. the Secretary to the

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

Jayakumar Vs the Inspector of Police

M.Sathiya Prakash Vs the Inspector of Police

Vinoth@ Vinoth Kumar Vs the Commissioner of Police

Ananthan Vs the Superintendent of Police

R.Govindhammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Joys Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu