Quashed

P.Rani v. the State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC9 Jun 2014HCP/2212/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed a detention order for Raj @ Rajkumar after finding that the detaining authority failed to effectively inform family members of the arrest due to contradictory details regarding the relationship and recipient of intimation in the arrest memo.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 21.06.2013 is quashed. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.

P.Rani Vs the State of Tamilnadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 09.06.2014

¶3

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

¶4

H.C.P.No.2212 of 2013

¶5

P.Rani ... Petitioner
-vs-
1. The State of Tamilnadu,
rep. By the Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai City Police,
Egmore,
Chennai 600 008. ... Respondents

¶6

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the 2^nd respondent in BDFGISSV No.271/2013 dated 21.06.2013 against the detenu RAJ @ RAJKUMAR, Son of Parthipan aged about 23 years, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and set aside the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Raj @ Rajkumar before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu. He has been branded as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under the order of the 2^nd respondent passed in Memo No.271/BDFGISSV/2013, dated 21.06.2013.

¶8

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶9

Sl. Police Station & Crime No. Section of Law No.

¶10

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

¶11

1 F-5 Choolaimedu Police 302 & 506(ii) IPC Station, Crime No.650/2013 2 F-4 Thousand Lights Police 392 IPC Station, Crime No.525/2013

¶12

The ground case alleged against the detenu is one registered on 02.06.2013 by the Inspector of Police, Law & Order, Choolaimedu Police Station in Crime No.654/2013 for offences under Sections 294 (b), 341, 323, 336, 427, 397 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶13

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, as in the arrest memo, it is stated that the arrest of the detenu was intimated to one Rani, aged 37 years, who is shown as wife of Anbu, but the nature of relation is mentioned as mother, which clearly shows non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority.

¶14

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

¶15

A scrutiny of the Arrest Memo annexed at page 198 of the booklet would show that the arrest of the detenu was not properly intimated to any of the family members, relatives or friends of the detenu, as the person to whom the intimation of arrest was made is named as Rani, aged 37 years, Wife of Anbu, but the nature of relation to the detenu is mentioned as 'mother'; moreover, when the father of the detenu is shown as 'Parthiban' and his mother is shown as 'Rani', the name of the recipient of arrest intimation is mentioned as Rani, W/o.Anbu, which undoubtedly causes confusion to the detenu.

¶16

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 the details pertaining to the intimation of arrest to the detenu are contradictory and there is no proof to exhibit intimation of arrest to the family members of the detenu, the detention order is liable to be vitiated on the ground of deprivation of right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.

¶17

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

¶18

In similar circumstances, a Hon'ble Division Bench of

¶19

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:

¶20

"19. Despite clear instructions given by the 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."

¶21

In view of the above, the impugned detention order dated 21.06.2013 passed by the 2^nd respondent vide Memo No.271/BDFGISSV/2013 detaining the detenu, namely RAJ @ RAJKUMAR, 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.

¶22

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.

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CO) Dated: 08.07.2014

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶26

¶27