Allowed

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs v. State of Tamilnadu

Madras HC13 Sept 2017HCP/463/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition filed under Article 226 sought to quash a detention order and release a detenu. The court observed that the Tamil version of the remand report lacked essential information regarding arrest grounds and legal aid. Relying on Article 22(5), the court held that this omission infringed on the detenu's rights and quashed the order.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 22.02.2017 was quashed, and the detenu Mathew is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required to be incarcerated in any other case.

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs Vs State of Tamilnadu — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 13.09.2017

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE A.SELVAM and

¶6

THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE P.KALAIYARASAN

¶7

H.C.P.No.463 of 2017
Ramesh .. Petitioner
Vs
1.State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram. .. Respondents

¶8

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 petitioner's friend detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 22.02.2017 on the file of the 2nd respondent herein made in proceedings BCDFGISSSV No.16/2017 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the said petitioner's friend namely, Mathew, aged 27 years, S/o.Sekar, before this Hon'ble Court and set the petitioner's friend at liberty from detention, now detained at Central Prison-II, Puzhal, Chennai-66.

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Paarthiban

¶12

for Mr.C.C.Chellappan

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.V.M.R.Rajentren, Additional Public Prosecutor

¶14

O R D E R [Order of the Court was made by A.SELVAM, J.] This Habeas Corpus Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to call for records relating to the detention order passed in BCDFGISSSV No.16/2017 dated 22.02.2017 by the Detaining Authority against the detenu by name, Mathew, aged 27 years, S/o.Sekar, residing at No.1/79, Mannadiyammankoil Street, Erumaiyur, Chennai-44 and quash the same.

¶15

The Inspector of Police, Otteri Police Station as Sponsoring Authority has submitted an affidavit to the Detaining Authority, wherein, it is averred to the effect that the detenu has involved in the following adverse case :

¶16

i. Somangalam Police Station Crime No.472/2016 registered under Sections 147, 148 and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of TNPPDL Act.

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

¶19

ii. Otteri Police Station Crime No.671/2016 registered under Sections 120-B, 147, 148 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code r/w Sections 3 and 6 of the Explosive Substances Act, 1908.

¶20

Further, it is averred in the affidavit that on 21.12.2016, at about 10.30 a.m., one Murugesan, aged 32 years, S/o.Palaniyandi, residing at No.16/5, Rajiv Gandhi Nagar, Ganesan Street, Nesapakkam, Chennai-78, as de facto complainant has given a complaint against the present detenu and others, wherein, it is alleged that in the place of occurrence, the detenu has tried to attack the de facto complainant by using filthy words and also caused damages to properties and at such circumstances, a case has been registered in Otteri Police Station Crime No.673/2017 under Sections 294[b] and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of Tamil Nadu Property [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act, 1992 @ into under Sections 147, 148, 294[b] and 506[ii] of the Indian Penal Code r/w Section 3[i] of Tamil Nadu Property [Prevention of Damage and Loss] Act, 1992 and ultimately, requested the Detaining Authority to invoke Act 14 of 1982 against the detenu.

¶21

The Detaining Authority after considering the averments made in the affidavit and other connected documents, has derived to a subjective satisfaction to the effect that the detenu is a habitual offender and ultimately, branded him as goonda by way of passing the impugned Detention Order and

¶22

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶23

¶24

in order to quash the same, the present petition has been filed by the friend of the detenu as petitioner.

¶25

On the side of the respondents, counter has not been filed and

¶26

therefore, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is disposed of on merits on the basis of available materials on record.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended to the effect that at page No.217 in the booklet, copy of the remand order has been annexed, wherein, it is clearly stated about the provision of Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and further, it is stated in the remand report of English version, the grounds of arrest and legal aid have also been mentioned. Copy of the Tamil version of remand report is found place in page No.217, wherein, the said vital information are totally absent.

¶28

Since in Tamil version, vital informations are totally absent as pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same would affect the rights of the detenu guaranteed under Article 22[5] of the Constitution of India and therefore, the Detention Order in question is liable to be quashed.

¶29

In fine, this petition is allowed. The Detention Order dated 22.02.2017 passed in BCDFGISSSV No.16/2017 by the Detaining Authority

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶31

¶32

against the detenu by name, Mathew, aged 27 years, S/o.Sekar is quashed and directed to set him at liberty forthwith, unless he is required to be

¶33

incarcerated in any other case.

¶34

[A.S., J.] [P.K., J.]
13.09.2017
gya
To
1.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public [Law and Order] Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
2.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Chennai-9.
3.The District Collector and District Magistrate,
Kancheepuram District,
Kancheepuram.
4.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.
[in duplicate for communication to the detenu]
5.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.

¶35

http://www.judis.nic.in

A.SELVAM, J.

and

P.KALAIYARASAN, J.

gya
H.C.P.No.463 of 2017
13.09.2017

¶41

http://www.judis.nic.in

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs v. State of Tamilnadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh, Aged 23 Yrs v. State of Tamilnadu

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

Muthuraj, Vs State of Tamilnadu

Sarasu, Aged 40 Years, Vs the Secretary to Govt.

Tmt.a.Sharmili, Aged 22 Years, Vs the Commissioner Police

Ramesh, M/a 23 Years, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

G.Arumugam, 67 Yrs, Vs the Secretray to Governement

Kanniyammal, F/A-43 Yrs., Vs the Superintendent of Police