Quashed

R.Govindhammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC2 Jun 2014HCP/2128/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order and allowed a habeas corpus petition because the detaining authority cited prior convictions involving murder while the ground case registered against the detenu pertained to wholly different offences, constituting nonapplication of mind.

What did the court decide?

The detention order is quashed; the detenu Manikandan is to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for another case.

R.Govindhammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | 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 and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM

¶5

H.C.P. No.2128 of 2013

¶6

R.Govindhammal ...Petitioner

¶7

Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Represented by its
Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City Police,
Egmore, Chennai-8. ...Respondents

¶8

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 in BDFGISSV No.884 of 2013 dated 03.09.2013 against the petitioner's son detenu Manikandan @ Lottaimani, son of Rajendran, aged about 24 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

The petitioner is the mother 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.884/2013 dated 03.09.2013.

¶10

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

¶11

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

¶12

Sr.No.	Police Station and Crime No.	Sections of Law
1.	P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police	147, 148, 341, 324, 307
	Station,	IPC r/w 3 of TNPPDL Act,
	Crime No.386 of 2013	1992
2.	P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police	147, 148, 341, 336, 427,
	Station,	302 and 506(ii) IPC
	Crime No.775 of 2013

¶13

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 17.08.2013 by the Inspector of Police, P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station in Crime No.1127 of 2013 for the offences under Sections 294 (b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) IPC. Aggrieved by the order of detention, the present petition has been filed.

¶14

3.Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that though the ground case was registered only for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C., in para 3 of the grounds of detention, the detaining authority has stated that the detenu, who is habitually committing crimes, has already come to adverse notice in two cases and in the ground case he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing brutal murder and as such he is branded as a Goonda. The offences for which the ground case was registered were entirely different from that of the second adverse case, which was registered for the offences under Sections 147, 148, 341, 336, 427, 302 and 506(ii) I.P.C. and therefore, there is nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority and on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶15

4.We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submission.

¶16

5.A reading of the detention order would show that though the detaining authority has clamped the order of detention, by stating that the detenu has already come to the adverse notice in two cases and in the ground case, he has acted in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order by committing brutal murder, the ground case has been registered only for the offences under Sections 294(b), 323, 336, 397, 427 and 506(ii) I.P.C. Therefore, there is nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in stating that the detenu committed the brutal murder and the detention order is liable to be quashed on this sole ground alone.

¶17

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

¶18

6.Accordingly, the impugned detention order passed by the 2^nd respondent, detaining the detenu Manikandan @ Lottai Mani, S/o.Rajendran, made in BDFGISSV No.884/2013 dated 03.09.2013 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The above named detenu, who is detained at the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

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.

¶20

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
Dated: 09.06.2014
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
mmi
To
1. The Secretary to the Government,
Home Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai – 9.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai-8.
3. The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5. The Joint Director,
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai - 600 009.
HCP No.2128 of 2013
GGK (CO)
PSI (09.06.2014)

¶21

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

R.Govindhammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.Govindhammal v. the State of Tamilnadu

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

Venkatesan Vs the Secretary to the

Joys Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu