Allowed

Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC28 Mar 2016HCP/2632/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition filed by the mother of a detenu, setting aside a detention order issued under the Tamil Nadu Act of 1982. The court quashed the order due to the detaining authority's non-application of mind, noting no evidence substantiated the claim that bail applications were being filed.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 05.09.2015 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless his presence is required for any other case.

Rani Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 28.03.2016

¶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.2632 of 2015

¶8

Rani ..Petitioner

¶9

Vs.
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
rep. by the Secretary,
Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai – 600 008. ..Respondents

¶10

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No. 871/BDFGISSV/2015, dated 05.09.2015, passed by the second respondent under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu Latchu @ Lakshmanan S/o. Karthikeyan, male, aged about 23 years, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, before this Hon'ble Court and set the detenu Latchu @ Lakshmanan, S/o. Karthikeyan, male aged about 23 years at liberty.

¶11

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Latchu @ Lakshmanan, S/o. Karthikeyan, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, relating to the detention order in Memo No. 871/BDFGISSV/2015, dated 05.09.2015, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, branding him as a

¶12

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

¶13

“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 set him at liberty forthwith.

¶14

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

¶15

Though, several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr. S.J. Selvam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had 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 no bail application had been filed by the detenu, in respect of Crime No.828 of 2015 on the file of K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station. However, in the detention order, it had been stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to take him out on bail, in Crime No. 828 of 2015, on the file of K-11, C.M.B.T. Police Station, by filing bail application before the appropriate Court.

¶16

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 bail application, on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in the above said case. 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.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 05.09.2015, 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.

¶18

Sd/Asst.Registrar (CS III )

/true copy/

Sub Asst. Registrar

The Secretary State of Tamil Nadu Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Fort St.George Chennai 600 009.

¶23

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

¶24

The Commissioner of Police, Egmore, Chennai – 600 008.

¶25

The Superintendent Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai

¶26

The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law and order) Fort Saint George, Chennai

¶27

The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 2632 of 2015
RSY (CO)
kk 22/4

¶28

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

Rani v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rani v. 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

R.Sathya Vs the State Rep. by

K.Sudhagar Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

F.Praveen Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Nagalakshmi Vs the Government of Tamil Nadu

Thiru. Thakkalipondan @ Vs the District Collector and

Ammu Vs the Secretary to the Govt.