Allowed

M.Selvi, v. State Rep. by

Madras HC5 Jun 2017HCP(MD)/384/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madurai Bench of Madras High Court allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the wife of a detenu, setting aside an order of detention under Act 14 of 1982. The court found the order liable for being passed 74 days after arrest without application of mind, as no bail application had been filed by the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The order of detention passed on 27.02.2017 under Act 14 of 1982 was set aside, and the detenu was set at liberty.

M.Selvi, Vs State Rep. by — Writ and Judicial Review | Madras HC (2017)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 05.06.2017 CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.S.SIVAGNANAM AND THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN

¶4

H.C.P(MD)No.384 of 2017

M.Selvi

: Petitioner

Vs.

1.State represented by, The Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, Tirunelveli.

¶9

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶10

3.State represented by The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District. : Respondents

¶11

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas corpus to call for the records from the first respondent in No.12 / BCDFGISSSV/2017 dated 27.02.2017 by setting aside the said order of detention passed by the first respondent and setting the detenu Muthu Krishnan, aged 37 years, S/0.Karuppasamy, at liberty now detained in the Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

¶12

For Petitioner : Mr.V.Kathirvelu Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Prabhu

¶13

For Respondents : Mr.C.Ramesh Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶14

O R D E R

¶15

¶16

[Order of the Court was made by T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.]

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Heard Mr. V. Kathirvelu, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.C.Ramesh, learned Additional Public

¶18

¶19

Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and perused the materials placed on record.

¶20

The petitioner is the wife of the detenu, who has been detained under Act 14 of 1982 and branded as “Goonda”. The petitioner has given two adverse notice of the respondent police and in respect of two cases in Crime No.1248 of 2016 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station for the offences under Sections 294(b), 302, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, which case is under investigation and the detenu has not filed bail application. The second case is Crime No.1250 of 2016 on the file of the Palayamkottai Police Station for the offences under Sections 341, 294(b), 387, 307, 506(ii) of the Indian Penal Code, which is also under investigation and the petitioner is not applied for bail.

¶21

The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the detenu was arrested on 13.12.2016 and however, the order of detention has been passed on 27.02.2017. In the counter affidavit filed by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Madurai Range and the Commissioner of Police, Tirunelveli City, this fact has been admitted in page 3paragraph 4(ii).

¶22

In the order of detention, the detaining authority stated that there is a real possibility of the detenu for coming out on bail by filing bail application, since in similar cases, bail has been granted and that the detenu has been remanded to Judicial custody and he is in custody for more than 60 days. This observation is clearly on account of non-application of mind as the detenu has not moved the bail application in either of the cases. This fact is evident from paragraph four of the Counter affidavit, wherein the tabulated statement has been given, in which it is clearly stated that the detenu has not applied for bail in both the cases. That apart the delay of 74 days in passing the order of detention from the date of arrest ie., from 13.12.2016 to 27.02.2017 is fatal to the very order of detention. Thus, we find that the impugned order of detention is liable to be set aside and the same is hereby set aside. Accordingly this Habeas Corpus petition is allowed.

¶23

Assistant Registrar(CSII) /True Copy/

¶24

Sub-Assistant Registrar

¶25

¶26

1.The Commissioner of Police, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Tirunelveli City,

¶27

Tirunelveli.

¶28

¶29

2.The Principal Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise (XIV) Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9.

¶30

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli District.

¶31

4.The Joint Secretary to Government, Public (Law and Order), Fort Saint George, Chennai-9

¶32

5.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai

¶33

+One cc to Mr.K.Prabhu, Advocate, SR.No.58437

¶34

tsg/ssl RL/7C/3P/KP/SAR1/15.6.2017

¶35

ORDER MADE IN

¶36

H.C.P(MD)No.384 of 2017

¶37

05.06.2017

¶38

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

M.Selvi, v. State Rep. by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Selvi, 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nallammal, (F, 56/17), Vs the Principal Secretary to

Murugavalli Vs the Secretary to Government

Pushpam Vs the Superintendent of Police

The Branch Manager, Vs Nalirabanu

The Divisional Manager, Vs S.Palanisamy (Died)

Branch Manager Vs Chandra