High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the father of a detenu, quashing the detention order dated 07.09.2015 passed under TN PDAPG Act due to non-application of mind by the detaining authority regarding bail prospects.
The impugned detention order dated 07.09.2015 is set aside and the detenu directed to be released unless needed for another case.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 01.04.2016
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN
and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
H.C.P.No.2849/2015
Nataraj
..... 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 District Collector & The District Magistrate, Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri .. Respondents
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 proceedings of the 2nd respondent herein in S.C.No.83 of 2015, dated 07.09.2015, and quash the same and produce the detenu Thiru Madhu, age 34, son of Thiru Nataraj, TPDA No.4470, now detained in Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner : Mrs.S.Nalini Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Madhu, aged 34 years, Son of Nataraj, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in S.C.No.83 of 2015, dated 07.09.2015, passed by the 2nd Respondent, detaining the detenu, under Section 3(1) 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 14/1982), the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, branding him as a “Goonda”, in the Central Prison, Salem, and to quash the same and to direct the Respondents to produce the body of the detenu and set him at liberty forthwith.
6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 07.09.2015, 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.
-s/d-
Assistant Registrar
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009.
2.The District Collector &
The District Magistrate,
Krishnagiri District, Krishnagiri
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Salem.
(In duplicate for communication to detenu)
4.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5. The Joint Secretary to government
Public Law and Order Fort St.George
Chennai-09
H.C.P.No.2849/2015
aa27/04/2016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order passed under TN PDAPG Act was valid given the inconsistency regarding bail applications and lack of recorded statement from relatives?
Whether the detaining authority committed a non-application of mind in passing the detention order?
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nataraj
The State of Tamil Nadu
The District Collector and The District Magistrate, Krishnagiri
M. Jaichandren
S. Nagamuthu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
