Allowed

Nallayee v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC21 Dec 2016HCP/1182/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order. The court found the detaining authority committed non application of mind by failing to record statements from relatives regarding their claim to seek bail for the detenu. Consequently, the detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith.

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus Petition allowed; detention order set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless presence required in other cases.

Nallayee Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 21.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN H.C.P.No.1182 of 2016

¶5

Nallayee .. Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
rep by the Principal Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate /District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Namagiri Pettai Police Station,
Namagiri Pettai,
Namakkal District. .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS, to call for the records relating to the detention order,
dated 28.4.2016, passed by the second respondent, in
C.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2016/M1, to quash the same and to direct the
respondents to produce the petitioner's son Marappan, son of
Kaliyappa Gounder, aged about 63 years, who is presently
undergoing detention, in the Central Prison, Salem, before this
Court and to set him at liberty, forthwith.

¶6

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Balasubramanian For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, APP ORDER

¶7

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Marappan, aged about 63 years, son of Kaliyappa Gounder, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call

¶8

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

¶9

for the records, in C.M.P.No.13/Goonda/2016/M1, dated 28.4.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982), branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Salem, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.

¶10

We have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State and we have also perused the records, carefully.

¶11

Though several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has assailed the impugned detention order mainly on the ground that the detaining authority had stated, in paragraph No.3 of the order of detention, that the detenu Marappan was remanded and lodged in the Central Prison, Salem, in Namagiripettai Police Station Crime No.112/2016. The detenu had not filed any bail application, so far. However, it had been stated in the grounds of detention that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, in respect of Crime No.112/2016, by filing a bail application, before the appropriate court. It had also been pointed out that no statements had been recorded from the relatives of the detenu with regard to the claim that they are taking steps to move any bail application, on behalf of the detenu and no such statements had been furnished to the detenu.

¶12

The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of the respondents.

¶13

It is noted from the records available that no statements had been recorded from the relatives concerned to substantiate the claim that they are taking steps to move a bail application, on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in Crime No.112 of 2016, on the file of Namagiripettai Police Station. In such circumstances, we find that there is non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority, in passing the detention order. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the detention order.

¶14

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 28.4.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be

¶15

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

¶16

released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶17

s/d-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub-Assistant Registrar
vvk
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George,Chennai-600 009.
2. The District Magistrate /District Collector,
Namakkal District, Namakkal.
3. The Inspector of Police,
Namagiri Pettai Police Station,
Namagiri Pettai,
Namakkal District.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government
Public (Law & Order), Govt. Of. TamilNadu
Fort.St. George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1182 of 2016
RK(CO)
sp/30/1

¶18

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

Nallayee v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nallayee v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

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

Durga Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Nandhini Vs the Secretary to Government

Rajkumar, Vs State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by

Karpagam, Age 38 Years, Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

K. Venkatachalam, Age 53 Years Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

G. Haribabu, Age 38 Years, Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by