Allowed

Karthik v. the Commissioner of Police

Madras HC14 Jun 2014HCP/2075/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the uncle of a detainee seeking habeas corpus against his detention under the Tamil Nadu act. The court held that lack of proof regarding intimation of arrest to family members vitiated the detention order under Article 22(1), quashing it and directing release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order dated 30.08.2013 No.855/BDFGISSV/2013 is set aside; detenu to be set at liberty forthwith unless custody required for another case.

Karthik Vs the Commissioner of Police — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 14.06.2014

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.DHANAPALAN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

H.C.P.No.2075 of 2013

¶6

Karthik ...Petitioner

¶7

-vs-

¶8

The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Office,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.

¶9

The Secretary to Government of Tamil nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Secretariat, Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009. ...Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus directing the respondents to call for the records of the 1^st respondent in connection with the order of the 1^st respondent dated 30.08.2013 No.855/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining Sudhakar, son of Rathinavelu, aged about 34 years as a Goonda under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the body of the said detenu now lodged in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶11

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

¶12

The petitioner is the uncle of the detenu. The detenu has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the first respondent passed vide BDFGISSV No.855/2013, dated 30.08.2013.

¶13

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

¶14

2.	The detenu came	to adverse notic	e in the followingcases:
Sl. No.	Police Station	& Crime No.	Section of Law
1	C2 Elephant	Gate Police	147, 148, 341, 302, 506
	Station Crime	No.16/2011	(ii)r/w 149 IPC
2	C2 Elephant Station Crime	Gate Police No.683/2011	399 IPC
3	C3 Seven Wells Crime No.1168/20	Police Station 13	341, 384, 324 & 506(ii) IPC
4	C3 Seven Wells Crime No.1198/20	Police Station 13	341, 384 & 506(ii) IPC
5	C2 Elephant Station Crime	Gate Police No.683/2013	341, 294(b), 384 & 506 (ii)IPC
6	C2 Elephant Station Crime	Gate Police No.1091/2013	341, 307 & 506(ii) IPC

¶15

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 14.08.2012 by the Sub-Inspector of Police, C2 Elephant Gate Police Station in Crime No.1270/2013 for offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 307, 336, 427 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶16

Amidst several grounds raised to assail the impugned order of detention, learned counsel for the petitioner would mainly contend that the detaining authority failed to seek clarification from the sponsoring authority about the serving of arrest memo to the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu in the 3^rd adverse case and there was no proof to show that the intimation of arrest was given, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

¶17

Heard Mr.P.Govindarajan, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, on the above submission.

¶18

A scrutiny of the Arrest Memo annexed at page 76 of the booklet would show that the arrest of the detenu in Crime No.1168/2013, the 3^rd adverse case was not intimated to any of the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu. When a person is taken into custody pursuant to a detention order, the members of his/her household, preferably his/her parents, spouse or children must be informed in writing of the passing of the detention order against the detenu(e) as also the fact that the detenu(e) has been taken into custody, by duly intimating as to the place of detention including the place where the detenu(e) is transferred from time to time, which would ensure the right of the person arrested under preventive detention. If such intimation of arrest is not made effectively, then it would confer a right upon the person arrested to impugn the arrest effected on him/her. In the case on hand, since there is no proof to exhibit intimation of arrest to the family members of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under

¶19

Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶20

In similar circumstances, a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shanmugam and another vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another, reported in (2013) 4 MLJ (Crl) 1, while issuing some suggestions and guidelines to the Government of Tamil Nadu, set aside the order of detention, by observing as under: "19. Despite clear instructions given by the

¶21

Government after touching upon the legal position, the officer, who arrested the detenus informed the said arrest to the wife and friend of detenus over cellphone, by simply stating that the date of arrest being Sunday, no telegraphic service was available, which is a matter of ignorance on the part of arresting authorities, as in our country, telegraphic services are available even on Sundays. The mode of communication adopted by the authorities, which was not even looked into by the detaining authorities is not only unknown to the settled principles, but also is an attempt to cast aside the instructions given by the Government."

¶22

In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 30.08.2013 passed by the first respondent vide Memo No.855/BDFGISSV/2013, namely, Sudhakar, is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶23

However, it is made clear that this order shall not preclude the authorities concerned 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.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-III)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

abe

¶28

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

¶29

To
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Commissioner Office,
Greater Chennai,
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
2. The Secretary to Government of Tamil nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department (Home)
Secretariat, Fort St. George,
Chennai 600 009.
3. The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras,
Chennai 600 104.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai - 9.
H.C.P. No.2075 of 2013
CNR (CO)
PSI (07.08.2014)

¶30

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

Karthik v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karthik v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

J.Arulanandaraj Vs the Joint Secretary

Padma Vs State of Tamil Nadu

Devi Vs the Governemtn of Tamil Nadu

Suganantham Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Kaleem Vs the Secretary to the

Kesavaramanujam Vs the Secretary to the