Allowed

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC1 Apr 2016HCP/2163/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition to quash a detention order under the TN Dangerous Activities Act. The court found a non-application of mind by the detaining authority for relying on a confession that was not furnished to the detenu, thereby preventing an effective representation. The detention order was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 27.07.2015 was set aside, and the detenu was directed to be released forthwith unless his presence was required for another case.

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 01.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P.No.2163/2015

¶8

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan .. Petitioner Vs 1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep.by its Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police, Commissioner Office-Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007. .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records on the file of the 2nd respondent in Memo No.608/BCDFGISSSV/2015 dated 27.7.2015 and quash the same as illegal and set the detenu Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan S/o.Mohan at liberty, who is now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, to produce before this Court.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Iyyakannu For Respondents: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

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

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed, by the detenu, namely, Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan, son of Mohan, aged about 32 years, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.608/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 27.7.2015, passed by the 2nd

¶13

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

¶14

Respondent, detaining him under Section 3(1) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber Law Offenders, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982), branding him as a “Sand Offender”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai-66, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to set him at liberty, forthwith.

¶15

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

¶16

Though, a number of grounds had been raised by the petitioner, while challenging the impugned order of detention, dated 27.07.2015, the learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had submitted that, the detaining authority had stated in the grounds of detention that the detenu had made a confession to the investigating officer with regard to his name and address and with regard to the act of theft of money, which he is said to have committed. He had further submitted that, though, the detaining authority has relied on the said confession statement to pass the detention order, the said confession statement had not been furnished to the detenu, hence, the detenu had been prevented from making an effective representation against the impugned order of detention.

¶17

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

¶18

It is noted from the grounds of detention that the detenu had made a confession with regard to his name and address and with regard to the act of theft of money, which he is said to have committed. It is further noted that, though, the detaining authority has relied on the said confession statement to pass the detention order, the said confession statement had not been furnished to the detenu. The non-furnishing of the confession statement, would prejudice the detenu, in making an effective representation. 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 impugned detention order.

¶19

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

¶20

6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 27.07.2015, 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.

¶21

Sd/-

¶22

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶23

//True Copy//

¶24

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,
Commissioner Office-Greater Chennai,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison,
Puzhal, Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
H.C.P.No.2163/2015
ak[co]
srg 21/04/2016

¶25

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

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan v. the Secretary to Government

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

K.Naveendran Vs the Secredtary to the

Govindammal Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Tmt. Veera Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Nataraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thangaraj Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Ramesh @ Blade Ramesh Vs State of Tamilnadu