Allowed

R. Mari, v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Madras HC19 Dec 2016HCP/1268/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged a detention order under the TN Dangerous Activities Act. The High Court set aside the order due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority, noting the failure to record statements from relatives regarding bail efforts.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 3.6.2016 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless presence is required for another case.

R. Mari, Vs the Secretary to the Govt. — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED:19.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.1268 of 2016

¶7

R.Mari ..Petitioner Vs.

¶8

1.The Secretary to the Government,

¶9

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶10

Chennai-600 009.

¶11

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai Police. ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the records in connection with the order of detention passed by the second respondent, dated 3.6.2016, in Memo No.536/BCDFGISSSV/2016, against the petitioner's son Mani @ Manimaran, aged about 24 years, son of Raja, who is confined at the Central Prison, Puzhal-II, Chennai and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu before this court and to set him at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Senthilvel

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶15

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Mani @ Manimaran, aged about 24 years, son of Raja, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.536/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 3.6.2016, passed by the second respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous

¶16

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

¶17

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, Puzhal, Chennai, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and to set him at liberty forthwith.

¶18

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.

¶19

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.4 of the order of detention, that the detenu Mani @ Manimaran has moved a bail application, in M-5 Ennore Police Station Crime No.409/2016, before the Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Thiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.1359/2016, which was withdrawn. Further, the detenu had not moved any bail application, in M-5 Ennore Police Station Crime No.413/2016, so far. It had been further stated in the order of detention that the relatives of the detenu are taking steps to take him out on bail, in M-5 Ennore Police Station Crime Nos.409 and 413 of 2016, by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court. However, no statements had been recorded from the relatives of the detenu with regard to the claim that they are taking steps to move a bail application, on behalf of the detenu and no such statements had been furnished to the detenu.

¶20

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.

¶21

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 M-5 Ennore Police Station Crime Nos.409/2016 and 413/2016. 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.

¶22

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 3.6.2016, passed by the

¶23

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

¶24

second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. vvk

Sd/-

Assistant Registrar

//True Copy//

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police.
3. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
4. The Superintendent, Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5. The Joint Secretary to Govt.
Public (Law & Order)
Fort St. George, Chennai 600 009.
KR/06/03/17 H.C.P.No.1268 of 2016

¶29

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

R. Mari, v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R. Mari, v. the Secretary to the Govt.

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

Ramijala Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

K.Arockiadass Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Elumalai Aged 46 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

M/S Asianet Communications Vs the Assistant Commissioner of

Sathishkumar, Aged 26 Years Vs the Superintendent of Police

M.Sharmili, F/23 Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by