H.C.P.No. Crime No. Sections of Law 2749 of 2013 T-5 Thiruverkadu Police 341, 294(b), 336, 427, Station Cr.No.1592/2013 392 and 506(ii) IPC Aggrieved by the orders of detention, the present petitions have been filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the respective petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. 4. Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in H.C.P.Nos.2377 and 2475 of 2013 would contend that as per Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, as soon as the arrest is made, it must be communicated to the relatives of the person arrested. If such constitutional requirement is not satisfied, then the detention order clamped on the detenu is liable to be vitiated on the ground of violation of Article 22(1). Pointing to Page No.51 of the booklet in H.C.P.No.2377 of 2013, learned counsel vehemently contended that communication in respect of arrest of the detenu was given only to the Superintendent of Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and therefore it will not serve the purpose for which the arrest communication is to be made. He would also contend that as per the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in A.K.Roy Vs. Union of India and another (AIR 1982 SC 710(1), there must be a communication to the relatives of the person arrested to enable them to take steps to take the arrested person on bail and if it is communicated to the prison authorities, the entire object will be defeated and the constitutional mandate will not be achieved.
