Allowed

Markrat v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC26 Oct 2015HCP/1640/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging a detention order. The court held that non-furnishing of documents related to prior bail applications infringed Article 22(5), vitiated the order, and quashed it, directing the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed; Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; Detenu set at liberty forthwith unless custody required in another case.

Markrat Vs the Secretary to Government — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 26.10.2015

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN

¶5

and THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶6

H.C.P.No.1640 of 2015

¶7

Markrat
W/o.Late Francis ...Petitioner
Vs.
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat,
Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
O/o.The Commissioner Office,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore. ...Respondents

¶8

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records pertaining to detention order passed by second respondent in C.No.28/G/IS/2015 dated 29.06.2015 against the detenu F.Louis Josewa @ Josewa @ Jose S/o.Francis, aged 24, quash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to produce the detenu, who is confined at Central Prison, Coimbatore, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Vinoth For Respondents : Mr.M.Maharaja, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by S.TAMILVANAN, J.]

¶13

Petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who has been branded as a "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and detained under orders of second respondent passed in C.No.28/G/IS/2015 dated 29.06.2015. Such order is under challenge herein.

¶14

The detenu came to adverse notice in the following cases:

¶15

Sl. Name of the Police Station and Section of Law No. Crime No. 1 Coimbatore City, B-7 Ramanathapuram 302 IPC Police Station, Crime No.121 of 2014

¶16

2 Coimbatore City, B-7 Ramanathapuram 294(b) and 307 Police Station, Crime No.124 of IPC 2014

¶17

3 Coimbatore City, B-7 Ramanathapuram 448, 427, 294 Police Station, Crime No.37 of 2015 (b), 323 and 506(i) IPC

¶18

4 Coimbatore City, B-7 Ramanathapuram 392 IPC Police Station, Crime No.167 of 2015

¶19

The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.276 of 2015 on the file of B-7 Ramanathapuram Police Station for offences under Sections 392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) IPC.

¶20

Learned counsel for petitioner submits despite the admitted position that the detenu has not filed any bail application in the fourth adverse case, the detaining authority has informed a real possibility of his coming out on bail by filing a bail application since in a similar case bail was granted by learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Coimbatore, in Crl.M.P.No.1881 of 2012 in respect of Crime No.408 of 2012 on the file of Coimbatore City, B-1 Bazaar Police Station, for offence u/s.392 IPC. The documents relating to the case treated as similar to that of the detenu has not been forwarded to the detenu. Instead thereof, bail application and bail order in respect of Crime No.638 of 2012 has been enclosed. Learned counsel informs that the same has adversely affected his right of making an effective representation.

¶21

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

¶22

We have heard learned Additional Public Prosecutor on the above submissions.

¶23

Non furnishing of relevant documents would deprive the detenu the opportunity of making effective representation to the authorities concerned. The same amounts to infringement of right enshrined under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and would vitiate the order of detention. For the aforesaid reason, this Court would allow the present petition.

¶24

The detention order passed by second respondent, detaining the detenu F.Louis Josewa @ Josewa @ Jose S/o.Francis, aged about 24 years, made in C.No.28/G/IS/2015 dated 29.06.2015, 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.

¶25

The present order is only for the purpose of disposal of this petition and shall not have any bearing upon connected criminal cases pending before the competent Court.

¶26

Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-III)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gm
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police/Detaining Authority,
O/o.The Commissioner Office,
Coimbatore City, Coimbatore.

¶27

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

¶28

The Superintendent of Central Prison Coimbatore.

¶29

The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order)

¶30

Fort St. George, Chennai – 9.

¶31

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶32

H.C.P.No.1640 of 2015
PPA (CO)
PSI (26.11.2015)

¶33

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

Markrat v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Markrat v. the Secretary to Government

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

Kalpana Vs the Commissioner of Police

Palaniyammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Mrs.M.Saradha Vs the Govt. of Tamil Nadu

Raju Vs State by

Priya Vs the Secretary to Government

Mrs.Deepa Vs the Principal Secretary to