Allowed

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Madras HC7 Apr 2016HCP/3073/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed by the mother seeking habeas corpus to challenge a detention order under the Tamil Nadu Goondas Act. The Court set aside the order due to the detaining authority's failure to record statements from relatives regarding pending bail, finding non-application of mind.

What did the court decide?

Impugned detention order dated 30.10.2015 set aside; detenu directed to be released forthwith unless required in another case.

Muniyammal Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 07.04.2016

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN and THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU

¶5

H.C.P.No.3073 of 2015

¶6

Muniyammal ... 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

¶7

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS to call for the entire records relating to the impugned order in No.BCDFGISSSV.No.1137/2015 dated 30.10.2015 on the file of the second respondent herein and set aside the same as illegal and consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the detenu Pattu @ Parthiban, son of Aladiyan, aged about 23 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.Ilayaraja Kandasamy For Respondents : Mr.A.N.Thambidurai, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

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

¶12

This Habeas Corpus Petition is filed, by the mother of the detenu, namely, Pattu @ Parthiban, son of Aladiyan, aged 23 years, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, to call for the records, in Proceedings No.BCDFGISSSV.No.1137/2015, dated 30.10.2015, 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, 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.Ilayaraja Kandasamy, 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 F3, Nungambakkam Police Station Crime Nos.1376 and 1378 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 F3, Nungambakkam Police Station Crime Nos.1376 and 1378 of 2015, by filing bail applications before the appropriate Court. It had also been pointed out that no statements 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 statements 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 applications on behalf of the detenu, to take him out on bail, in the above said cases. In such circumstances, we find that

¶17

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

¶18

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.

¶19

6.Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the impugned detention order, dated 30.10.2015, 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.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶22

//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
tsi
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 Joint Secretary to Government,
Public(Law & Order),
Fort Saint George, Chennai - 9.
5. The Additional Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.3073 of 2015
KS(CO)
CA(28/04/2016)

¶23

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

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muniyammal v. the State of Tamil Nadu 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

Munivel Alias Kutti Vs State Rep by

Lakshmi Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by

Devaki Vs State Rep by

S.Muthukrishnan Vs the Superintendent of Police

Tmt.Kumari Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

Abdul Khadar Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by