Quashed

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Magistrate and

Madras HC12 Apr 2016HCP/2903/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act as it was based on a baseless assumption that bail was likely, despite the detenu having filed no fresh bail applications after previous dismissals.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 08.09.2015 is quashed; the detenu is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required in another case.

Dhanalakshmi Vs the District Magistrate and — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 12.04.2016

¶3

CORAM:

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

H.C.P.No.2903 of 2015

¶6

Dhanalakshmi ... Petitioner -Vs1.The District Magistrate and District Collector Tiruppur District Tiruppur. 2.The Secretary Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Government of Tamil Nadu Fort St.George Chennai 9. ... Respondents

¶7

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of direction, in the nature of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records of the first respondent in CMP No.18/Goonda/2015 dated 08.09.2015 and to set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the detenu Bala @ Balamurugan S/o Chinnathambi, aged about 20 years, now confined in Borstal School and District Jail, Puduckottai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Mohamed Ismail For Respondents : Mr.A.N. Thambidurai

¶9

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶10

The Petitioner, who is the mother of the detenu, viz., Bala @ Balamurugan, Son of Chinnathambi, aged 20 years, has filed this petition challenging the order of detention passed by the 1st respondent in Cr.M.P.No.18/Goonda/2015 dated 08.09.2015, branding her son as a "Goonda" under Section 3[1] of the Tamila Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber

¶11

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

¶12

Even though the learned counsel for the petitioner raised many grounds in assailing the impugned order of detention in the petition, he focused his argument on the ground that in Cr.Nos.365/2014, 368/2014, 153/2015 and 240/2015, the bail applications filed by the detenu were dismissed by the learned Magistrates concerned and thereafter, no fresh application was filed by him seeking bail. When that be so, the satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority, that there is likelihood of the detenu coming out on bail is absolutely baseless.

¶13

We have considered the above submissions.

¶14

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, from paragraph 5 of the detention order, it is crystal clear that the detenu had not filed any fresh application seeking bail, after dismissal of the earlier applications. When that be so, it is not explained to the Court as to how the detaining authority has come to the conclusion that there was real possibility of the detenu coming out on bail. This shows the predetermined mind of the detaining authority. In such view of the matter, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶15

Accordingly, the habeas corpus petition is allowed and the detention order dated 08.09.2015, passed by the 1st respondent is quashed. The detenu is directed to be set at liberty, forthwith, unless his presence is required in connection with any other case. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar gms To

¶16

1.The District Magistrate and District Collector, Tiruppur District,Tiruppur.

¶17

2.The Secretary, Prohibition and Excise Department (Home) Government of Tamil Nadu, Fort St.George,Chennai 9.

¶18

3.The Public Prosecutor, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶19

3.The Superintendent, Borstal School and District Jail, Pudukottai.

¶20

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

¶21

The Joint Secretary to Government Public (Law & order), Fort St. George, Chennai. 600 009.

¶22

- 1 cc to Mr.A. Mohamed Ismail, Advocate Sr.23310

¶23

H.C.P.No.2903 of 2015

¶24

SK(CO) Eu 07.06.16

¶25

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

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Magistrate and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhanalakshmi v. the District Magistrate and

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

Sivagami Vs State of Tamilnadu

Pushpa Vs the Secretary to Government

Kaliammal Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Radha Vs the Secretary to the

H. Jaheer Hussain Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by Its

Thiru.Ashok Vs the Commissioner of Police