Allowed

K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC21 Dec 2016HCP/1384/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The detention was quashed due to non-application of mind by the authority, who incorrectly assumed real possibility of bail based on a similar case where statutory bail was granted.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 30.05.2016 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless presence is required in another case.

K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky Vs the State of Tamil… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | 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

¶5

H.C.P.No.1384 of 2016

¶6

K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky .. Petitioner/Detenue

¶7

¶8

State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

The Commissioner of Police Office of the Commissioner of Police Coimbatore City .. Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, calling for the records pertaining to the detention order passed against the petitioner by the second respondent herein in C.No.19/G/IS/2016 dated 30.05.2016 and quash the same and further direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner before this Court and set him at liberty from the Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.P.M.Duraisamy For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren Additional Public Prosecutor

¶12

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

¶13

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed by the detenu, namely, K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky, aged 23 years, S/o.Kannaiyan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in C.No.19/G/IS/2016, dated 30.05.2016, 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

¶14

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

¶15

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

¶16

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.

¶17

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 the order of detention, that in a similar case registered in Crime No.69 of 2013 on the file of Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, the bail had been granted to another accused M.Isakkipandi and others, in C.M.P.No.6572 of 2013, on 28.05.2013 by the Judicial Magistrate No.III,Tirunelveli. In the said case, statutory bail had been granted, under Section 167 (ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, it cannot be said that in the ground case, in Crime No.221 of 2016, on the file of the C-4 Rathinapuri Police Station, there is a real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. Thus, it is a clear case of non application of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

¶18

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.

¶19

It is noted from the records available that the Detaining Authority, while passing the detention order, had mentioned in the detention order that in a similar case registered in Crime No.69 of 2013, on the file of the Tirunelveli Taluk Police Station, the accused persons were released on bail, in Crl.M.P.No.6572 of 2013, by an order, dated 28.05.2015, by the Judicial Magistrate III, Tirunelveli. However, on a perusal of the records available, it had been found that in Crime No.69 of 2013, statutory bail had been granted, under Section 167(ii) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, it is clear that there is no real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail, in the ground case, in Crime No.221 of 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.

¶20

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 30.05.2016, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu is directed to

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶24

//True Copy//

¶25

Sub Assistant Registrar
To
1. The Secretary to Government,
State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009.
2 The Commissioner of Police,
O/O the Commissioner of Police,
Coimbatore City
3 The Superintendent, Central Prison, Coimbatore
4 The Joint Secretary to Govt., Public (Law & Order)
Tort Saint George, Chennai
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
+1cc to Mr.P.M. Duraisamy, Advocate, S.R.No.74495
pvs(CO)
md(31/01/2017)
H.C.P.No.1384 of 2016

¶26

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

K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Vignesh @ Thala Vicky 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