Allowed

Muthu v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Apr 2016HCP/2943/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought a writ of habeas corpus to quash his son's detention order under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act. The Court found the detaining authority acted without application of mind by relying on uncorroborated claims about bail efforts without recording statements from relatives. Consequently, the Court quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The impugned detention order dated 31.10.2015 is set aside and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Muthu Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 05.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

¶5

and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶6

H.C.P.No.2943/2015

¶7

Muthu ..... 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 Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery,
Chennai-600 007 .. 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 of relating to the detention order
dated 31.10.2015 made in Memo No.1145/BCDFGISSSV/2015, passed
by the 2nd respondent herein, quash the same and direct the
respondents to produce the body or person of the petitioner's
son Chellapandi, son of Muthu, aged about 26 years, branded as
Goonda and now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai,
before this Court and set him at liberty forth with.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.C.Mohan Raj For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor ORDER

¶9

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

¶10

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the father of the detenu, namely, Chellapandi, aged 26 years, Son of Muthu, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in No.1145 of 2015, dated 31.10.2015, passed by the 2nd Respondent,

¶11

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

¶12

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.

¶13

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.

¶14

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, in the detention order 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. It had also been pointed out that no statement had been recorded from the relatives of the detenu with regard to the claim that they are taking steps to move bail application, on behalf of the detenu and no such statement had been furnished to the detenu.

¶15

The said submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, had not been refuted by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶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

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

¶18

6.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.

¶19

-s/dAssistant Registrar

¶20

True Copy

¶21

Sub-Assistant Registrar
msk
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Fort St.George
Chennai 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai Police,
Vepery, Chennai-600 007.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government
Public Law and Order Fort st.George Chennai-9
H.C.P.No.2943/2015

¶22

aa26/04/2016

¶23

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

Muthu v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muthu 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

Boomidoss Vs State Rep by

Uma @ Uma Maheshwari Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

S.Rukmani Vs the Secretary to the

Lakshmi Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Saraswathy Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Anjalam Vs the State of Tamil Nadu