Allowed

Boomidoss v. State Rep by

Madras HC4 Apr 2016HCP/2939/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by the petitioner's father for the release of his son detained as a 'Goonda', sought setting aside of a detention memo. The court found the detaining authority failed to record statements from relatives to substantiate pending bail claims, constituting non-application of mind. The detention order was accordingly set aside, and the detenu d

What did the court decide?

Habeas Corpus petition allowed; detention order dated 31.10.2015 set aside; detenu released forthwith unless required for another case.

Boomidoss Vs State Rep by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 04.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

H.C.P.No.2939/2015

¶7

Boomidoss .. Petitioner
Vs

¶8

1.State rep by The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai-600 009 2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, Vepery, Chennai-600 007 .. Respondents

¶9

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS calling upon the production of records relating to the detention order dated 31.10.2015 made in Detention Order Memo No.1144/BCDFGISSSV/2015 passed by the 2^nd respondent herein, quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's son Sokki @ Ashok Prasanna, Son of Boomidoss, aged about 23 years branded as Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mohan Raj For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER [Order of the Court was made by M.JAICHANDREN,J]

¶11

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Sokki @ Ashok Prasanna, aged 23 years, praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Memo No.1144/BCDFGISSSV/2015, dated 31.10.2015, passed by the 2nd

¶12

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

¶13

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, 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 on behalf of the State and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶15

Though, several grounds have been raised, in this Habeas Corpus Petition, Mr.C.Mohan Raj, 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 moved on behalf of the detenu, in T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station Crime No.931 of 2015. However, it had been stated that the relatives of the detenu are taking action to take him out on bail, in T-5, Thiruverkadu Police Station Crime No.931 of 2015, 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 31.10.2015, 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/Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶19

//True Copy//

¶20

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

¶21

To
1.The Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai Police
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5.The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.2939/2015
<br>ppa(CO)
srg(28/04/2016)

¶22

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

Boomidoss v. State Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Boomidoss v. State Rep by

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

Sathish Kumar @ Thoplan Vs the Secretary to Government

Nataraj Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Thangaraj Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Uma @ Uma Maheshwari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

S.Rukmani Vs the Secretary to the

N.Rajesh Vs the Secretary to Government