Allowed

Ammu v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Madras HC28 Mar 2016HCP/2641/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu. Finding that the detaining authority relied on unverified statements regarding bail applications for relatives without recording evidence, the Court held there was non-application of mind and quashed the detention order under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order dated 17.09.2015 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless presence required for other case.

Ammu Vs the Secretary to the Govt. — Public Procurement and Tenders | 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.2641 of 2015

¶8

Ammu ..Petitioner

¶9

¶10

1. The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department Secretariat, Chennai 600 009.

¶11

The Commissioner of Police, Chennai Police, Egmore, Chennai. ..Respondents

¶12

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the records in connection with the order of Detention passed by the 2^nd respondent dated 17.09.2015 in BCDFGISSSV No. 942 of 2015 against the husband of the petitioner BONDA @ Balaji, M/A 24 years, S/o. Pandurangan, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai and to set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu before the Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner :: Mr.K.S. Kaviarasu

¶14

For Respondents :: Mr.A.N.Thambidurai,

¶15

Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶16

ORDER

¶17

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

¶18

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the wife of the detenu, namely, BONDA @ Balaji, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in connection with the detention order in Memo No. BCDFGISSSV No. 942 of 2015 dated 17.09.2015, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982, branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, and to set aside the same and to direct the respondents to produce the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶19

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

¶20

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.

¶21

Though, several grounds have been raised in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr. K.S. Kaviarasu, 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 applications had been filed by the detenu, in respect of Crime Nos.444/2013, 744/2013 and 1262/2013, on the file of V.3, J.J. Nagar 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 respect of Crime Nos.444/2013, 744/2013 and 1262/2013, on the file of V.3, J.J. Nagar Police Station, by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court.

¶22

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.

¶23

5.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 17.09.2015, 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.

¶24

Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

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

¶29

¶30

The Secretary to Govt.,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Egmore, Chennai.
3. The Superintendent Central Prison Puzhal,
Chennai.
4. The Joint Secretary to Government Public, (Law & order)
5. The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P. No. 2641 of 2015
RSY(CO)
Eu 22.4.16

¶31

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

Ammu v. the Secretary to the Govt.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ammu v. the Secretary to the Govt.

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

Rani Vs State of Tamil Nadu