Allowed

P.Saroja, Aged 67 Years, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC5 Dec 2018HCP/1731/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the grandmother of a detenu. The Court examined a detention order under the TNPPDL Act, 1982. Finding lack of application of mind and no real possibility of bail due to pending investigations, the Court set aside the detention order and directed the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 29.06.2018 is set aside and the detenu, Logu @ Yogaraj, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

P.Saroja, Aged 67 Years, Vs the Government of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 05.12.2018

¶2

CORAM:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE C.T.SELVAM

¶4

and THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE B.PUGALENDHI

¶5

H.C.P. No.1731 of 2018

P.Saroja

... Petitioner

-Vs-

1.The Government of Tamil Nadu, rep by its Secretary, Home, Prohibition

¶10

and Excise (XVI) Department,

¶11

Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶12

2.The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai,

¶13

Office of the Commissioner of Police,

¶14

Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ...Respondents

¶15

PRAYER: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in detention order Memo No.449/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 29.06.2018 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same and direct the respondents herein to produce the body of the petitioner's Grand Son Logu @ Yogaraj, aged about 28 years, the detenu now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal before this Hon'ble Court and set him at liberty.

¶16

For Petitioner : Mr.K.Kannan

¶17

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar

¶18

Additional Public Prosecutor

¶19

¶20

ORDER

¶21

[Order of the Court was made by C.T.SELVAM, J.]

¶22

The petitioner, who is the grand mother of the detenu, namely, Logu @ Yogaraj, Son of Kumar, age 28 years, challenges the impugned order of detention, dated 29.06.2018 in No.449/BCDFGISSSV/2018 detaining his grand son as "GOONDA", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Prevention of dangerous activities of Boot leggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982).

¶23

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

¶24

The detenu has come to adverse notice in the following cases:-

¶25

S.No.	Police Station & Crime No.	Section of Law
1.	K-2 Ayanavaram Police Station Crime No.202/2018	Sec.3 of TNPPDL Act 1992
2.	K-2 Ayanavaram Police	341, 294(b), 324 and
	Station Crime No.203/2018	506(ii) IPC

¶26

The ground case has been registered against the detenu in Crime No.310/2018 on the file of the Inspector of Police, K-2 Ayanavaram Police Station for offences u/s 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. The detention order has been passed by second respondent in No.449/BCDFGISSSV/2018 on 29.06.2018.

¶27

We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents. We have also perused the records produced by the Detaining Authority.

¶28

Though several grounds have been raised in the Habeas Corpus Petition, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, confines his argument only in respect of nonapplication of mind on the part of the detaining authority in passing the order of detention.

¶29

The Grounds of Detention would reveal that 2 adverse cases have been registered against the detenu and a ground case was registered against him in Cr.No.310/2018 for the offences 341, 294(b), 323, 336, 397 and 506(ii) IPC. Admittedly, the detenu has not moved any bail application in the adverse cases Crime Nos.202/2018 and 203/2018. Therefore, the probability of release of the detenu imminently does not arise. Hence, we are inclined to set aside the detention order. Though the detaining authority has made reliance on similar case, in which an accused was granted bail, the facts involved in those cases are different. The principle of similarity cannot be applied mechanically. Normally, bails are granted based on the facts and circumstances of each case. Therefore, similar case plea, cannot be taken into consideration. Hence, there is no material to substantiate that there is real possibility of the detenue coming out on bail and the said order was passed without application of mind.

¶30

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

¶31

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in No.449/BCDFGISSSV/2018 dated 29.06.2018, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Logu @ Yogaraj, Son of Kumar, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶32

Deputy Registrar

¶33

//True Copy//

¶34

Sub Assistant Registrar
kkn
To:
1.The Secretary, Home, Prohibition
and Excise (XVI) Department,
Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Puzhal,
Chennai.
4.The Joint Secretary
Public (Law and order) Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.
5.The Public Prosecutor
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1731 of 2018

¶35

rrs 20/12/2018

¶36

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

P.Saroja, Aged 67 Years, v. the Government of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Saroja, Aged 67 Years, v. the Government 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

R.Mahendran Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep.by

M.Aisma, Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

State Rep. by, Vs Saravanan @ Krishnan