Allowed

Poomayil v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC20 Dec 2016HCP/1362/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court quashed the order due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority in relying on unverified claims that relatives were moving bail applications without recording statements from them.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 23.2.2016 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

Poomayil Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 20.12.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.MATHIVANAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.1362 of 2016

¶8

Poomayil ...Petitioner

¶9

¶10

The State of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Office of the Commissioner of Police, (Goondas Section),

¶12

Egmore, Chennai-600 008. ...Respondents

¶13

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, to call for the entire records from the second respondent, in connection with the order Memo BCDFGISSSV No.182/2016, dated 23.2.2016, and quash the same and to produce the petitioner's son Manikandan, aged about 24 years, son of Mathi, now detained in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and to set him at liberty.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ilavarasan

¶15

For Respondents: Mr.V.M.R.Rajentran, APP

¶16

ORDER

¶17

[Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J.]

¶18

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the mother of the detenu, namely, Manikandan, aged about 24 years, son of Mathi, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the

¶19

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

¶20

records, in No.182/BCDFGISSSV/2016, dated 23.2.2016, 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, 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.

¶21

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.

¶22

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 Manikandan is in remand in M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No.103 of 2016 and M1 Madhavaram Police Station Crime No.165/2016. The detenu had moved a bail application, for M-1 Madhavaram Police Station Crime No.165/2016, before the Principal District and Sessions Court, Tiruvallur, in Crl.M.P.No.543 of 2016, which is pending. It had been further stated that the detenu had not moved any bail application, for M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station Crime No.103 of 2016. 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 M2 Madhavaram milk Colony Police Station Crime No.103/2016, 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.

¶23

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.

¶24

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.103 of 2016, on the file of M2 Madhavaram Milk Colony Police Station. In such circumstances, we find that

¶25

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

¶26

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.

¶27

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 23.2.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to be released, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶28

//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 Commissioner of Police,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
(Goondas Section),
Egmore, Chennai-600 008.
3. The Superintendent central prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Govt. Public (Law & Order)
Fort Saint George, Chennai-9.
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
LRS(CO)
RS(01/02/2017)

¶29

H.C.P.No.1362 of 2016

¶30

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

Poomayil v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Poomayil 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

Atchiamma Vs the Principal Secretary to

R. Mari, Vs the Secretary to the Govt.

Mrs.R.Uma Vs State of Tamil Nadu

N.Pasunkili, F/49 Yrs Vs the Secretary to the

Indhira Vs the Secretary to the

S.Nancy Mary F/18 Years Vs the State of Tamil Nadu