Allowed

K.Sudhagar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC24 Mar 2016HCP/2626/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition challenging a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court held that the detaining authority was guilty of total non-application of mind as it relied on facts similar to an unsuited case, and quashed the order directing the detenu's release.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order No.C2/18673/2015 dated 22.09.2015 is quashed, and the detenu, Sudhagar, is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required in any other case.

K.Sudhagar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 24.03.2016

¶3

Coram:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶7

H.C.P.No.2626 of 2015

¶8

K.Sudhagar .. Petitioner vs. 1.The Secretary to the Government, State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.

¶9

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records from the 2^nd respondent in connection with order No.C2/18673/2015 dated 22.09.2015 and quash the same and produce the petitioner namely, Sudhagar, S/o.Krishnan, aged 24 years now confined in Central Prison, Cuddalore under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶10

For petitioner : Mr.P.Pugalenthi

¶11

For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambi Durai, Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶12

The petitioner is the detenu herein, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 as per the detention order of the 2^nd respondent in No.C2/18673/2015 dated 22.09.2015. Challenging the said detention order, the petitioner/detenu has come up before this Court with this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶13

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

¶14

2 We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶15

3 Even though various grounds have been raised in the present Habeas Corpus Petition, challenging the order of detention, dated 22.09.2015, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would focus his argument on the ground that the Detaining Authority, though has stated that the Sessions Court has granted bail to one accused viz., Arivu @ Arivazhagan, in Crime No.695/2013 on the file of the Villupuram Taluk Police Station u/s.147, 148, 452, 324, 307, 302 and 109 of IPC read with Section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, which is similar to the ground case in Roshanai Police Station Crime No.422/2015 for the offences u/s.294[b], 324, 307 IPC read with section 3 of Explosive Substance Act, 1908. They are not similar cases. Thus, the satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority, according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, is founded on no valuable facts.

¶16

4 We have considered the above submissions.

¶17

5 On appreciation, the offences involved in the similar case in Crime No.695/2013 on the file of Villupuram Taluk Police Station in which bail has been granted by the Sessions Court and the offences involved in the ground case in Roshanai Police Station Crime No.422/2015, are substantially different, as it has been rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Thus, we are in agreement with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that there was total nonapplication of mind on the part of the Detaining Authority. In view of the same, we are inclined to quash the impugned detention order.

¶18

6 Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order in No.C2/18673/2015 dated 22.09.2015, passed by the 2^nd respondent is quashed. The detenu, namely, Sudhagar, son of Krishnan, is directed to be released forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶19

Assistant Registrar(J)

¶20

//True Copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The Secretary to the Government,
State of Tamil Nadu,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-600 009.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate
Villupuram District, Villupuram.
3.The Superintendent of Police
Central Prison, Cuddalore.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court,
Chennai.
H.C.P.No.2626/2015
sv[co]
srg 15/04/2016

¶25

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

K.Sudhagar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Sudhagar v. the State of Tamil Nadu

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

Mrs.S.Priya Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Dosai Kumar @ Thiyagarajan Vs State of Tamilnadu

Amanullah Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

R.Sathya Vs the State Rep. by

F.Praveen Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Viji Alias Vijay Vs State Rep by