Allowed

Jaya Kumar v. the Secretary to Government of

Madras HC14 Mar 2016HCP/2159/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged a detention order branding him as a 'Goonda' under TN Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The High Court quashed the order finding the Detaining Authority acted with total non-application of mind regarding bail status of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

Detention order set aside; detenu Jayakumar directed to be released forthwith unless presence required for other case.

Jaya Kumar Vs the Secretary to… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 14.03.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P.No.2159/2015

¶8

Jayakumar .. Petitioner Vs. 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department [Home] Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009.

¶9

2.The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office-Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai 600007. .. Respondents

¶10

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus calling for the records on the file of the 2^nd respondent in Memo No.611/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.07.2015 and quash the same as illegal and set the detenu Jayakumar S/o.Murugan, at liberty who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai to produce before this Court.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Iyyakannu For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,APP

¶12

ORDER

¶13

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

¶14

Challenge is made to the order of detention passed by the second respondent vide Proceedings in Memo No.611/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.07.2015, whereby the detenu/petitioner herein, was ordered to be detained under the provisions 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”.

¶15

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

¶16

2.Though many grounds have been raised in the petition, Mr.N.Iyyakannu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

¶17

3.Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the bail application filed by the detenu in the adverse case in Cr.No.1244/2015 on the file of G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station, in Crl.MP.No.10449/2015 was dismissed by the learned XIV Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai on 14.07.2015 and he has not moved any further bail application in the said case as on the date of passing of the detention order. Further, he was granted bail in the ground case [Cr.No.1246/2015] by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai in Crl.MP.No.10450/2015 ; but he has not furnished the sureties. But the Detaining Authority, in the Grounds of Detention, has stated that the relatives are taking steps to file bail application in the said adverse case. But, the said factum has not been reflected in the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority. This is indicative of non-application of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority and thus, the detention order is vitiated on the above sole ground and the same is liable to be quashed.

¶18

4.Per contra, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention has been passed on cogent and sufficient materials and the same cannot be interfered with at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, he submits that the Habeas Corpus Petition does not merit any consideration and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶19

5.We have heard the learned counsel for both sides with regard to the facts.

¶20

6.As evidenced from the Grounds of Detention, in particular, paragraph 4, the Detaining Authority has stated that the “Sponsoring Authority has stated that the relatives of Thiru Jayakumar are taking action to take him on bail by filing bail application in G5 Secretariat Colony Police Station Cr.No.1244/2015 by filing bail applications before the Court...”. But, a perusal of the Booklet, in particular, the Special Report of the Sponsoring Authority, it is evident that nothing has been stated by the Sponsoring Authority to the effect of the relatives taking steps to file bail applications in the said cases and no statements of the relatives have been recorded to that effect. This is indicative of total nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. Therefore, the detention order is vitiated and liable to be

¶21

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

¶22

quashed on this ground alone.

¶23

7.It is trite law that personal liberty protected under Article 21 is so sacrosanct and so high in the scale of Constitutional values that it is the obligation of the detaining authority to show that the impugned detention meticulously accords with the procedure established by law. Preventive detention is preventive and not punitive. When ordinary law of the land is sufficient to deal with, taking recourse to the preventive detention law is illegal.

¶24

8.In the light of the above facts and law, we have no hesitation in quashing the order of detention on the above mentioned ground.

¶25

Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order 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(CS-VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar AP To 1.The Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu Prohibition & Excise Department [Home] Secretariat, Fort St George, Chennai 600 009. 2.The Commissioner of Police Commissioner Office-Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai 600007. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai. 4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law & Order), Fort St.George, Chennai 9. 5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. +1 cc to Mr.N.Iyyakannu, Advocate, sr.16441 H.C.P.No.2159/2015 kji co kra 29.03.2016

¶26

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

Jaya Kumar v. the Secretary to Government of

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaya Kumar v. the Secretary to Government of

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

Ramesh Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Sridevi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Karthik Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thamizharasi Vs the Ins

Selvi Vs the Secretary to the

Alamelu Vs the Secretary to the