Allowed

Rabiya v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC16 Apr 2019HCP/2905/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Madras High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition by a mother seeking release of her son detained under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court quashed the detention order primarily because there was no material to prove the arrest intimation via mobile phone was successfully delivered to a relative or friend, thereby vitiating the detenu's right to initiate release procedures.

What did the court decide?

The detention order dated 08.12.2018 is set aside and the detenu S.Riyazudeen is set at liberty forthwith unless detention is required in other proceedings.

Rabiya Vs the Secretary to Government — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED 16.04.2019

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SATHYANARAYANAN

¶6

AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.NIRMAL KUMAR
HCP.No.2905 of 2018
Rabiya .. Petitioner
Versus
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority
City Police Office,
Huzur Road,
Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore-18. .. Respondents

¶7

Prayer:Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus to call for the records relating to the petitioner's son detention under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 vide detention order, dated 08.12.2018 on the file of the second respondent herein made in proceedings Memo C.NO.133/G/IS/2018, quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the petitioner's son namely S.Riyazudeen, S/o.sulaiman, aged 23 years before this Court and set the petitioner's son at liberty from detention, now the petitioner's son detained at Central Prison, Coimbatore.

¶8

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶9

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.W.Camyles Gandhi For Respondents : Mr.C.Iyyappa Raj Additional Public Prosecutor

¶11

ORDER

¶12

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

¶13

The petitioner is the mother of the detenu, who, vide impugned
Order of Detention dated 08.12.2018 passed by the 2 nd respondent by
invoking Section 2(f) of the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982, in branding the
detenu as ' 'Goonda'' , came forward to file this Habeas Corpus petition.
2. A perusal of the grounds of detention would disclose among
other things that the detenu came to adverse notice in the following
cases:
Sl.No. Crime No. Section of law Date of occurrence
1. Coimbatore City, B-2 379 IPC 13.11.2017
R.S.Puram Police
Station
Cr.NO.155/2018
2. Coimbatore City, E-1 379 IPC 01.11.2018
Singanallur Police
Station
Cr.No.1295/2018
3. Coimbatore City, B-2 392 IPC 15.11.2018
R.S.Puram Police
Station
Cr.No.1301/2018

¶14

http://www.judis.nic.i n

¶15

¶16

It is further alleged that the defacto complainant namely Mrs.V.Suguna, a

¶17

resident of Indira Nagar, Selvapuram, Coimbatore has lodged a complaint on the file of the Inspector of Police, Crime, B-2 R.S.Puram Police Station, stating among other things that at about 21.15 hours on 15.11.2018, she and her husband were standing near Hotel Annapoorna, a person later identified as Riyazudeen, came in a motorcycle, stopped near the complainant and suddenly snatched the gold chain and when public started chasing him, he fell down and started to run. He drawn a knife and threatened the public with dire consequences and taking advantage of the situation fled away from the scene of occurrence and based on the complaint, the Sub Inspector of Police of the above said police Station has registered a case in Cr.No.1302/2018 under Section

¶18

392 r/w 397 and 506(ii) (ground case). The detenu was arrested on 15.11.2018 and during the course of interrogation, he voluntarily came

¶19

forward to give a confession statement and as per the admissible portion of the confession statement, certain incriminating articles were seized.

¶20

The arrest intimation was sent through mobile phone by way of message. The detenu was produced before the Court of Judicial Magistrate No.I, Coimbatore on 16.11.2018 and remanded to judicial custody till

¶21

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶22

¶23

29.11.2018 and his remand period was periodically extended till 13.12.2018.

¶24

The Detaining Authority namely, the 2^nd respondent, on the

¶25

basis of materials, formed a subjective satisfaction that the detenu, who

¶26

has committed the crime, have already came to adverse notice in three cases and his acts are prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and accordingly, clamped the impugned orders of detention and challenging

¶27

the legality of the same, the present Habeas Corpus Petition is filed.

¶28

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the detenu has

¶29

drawn the attention of this Court to Page no.136 of the booklet and

¶30

would submit that the arrest intimation in connection with the ground

¶31

case was sent through SMS through Mobile No.8124074054 and there is

¶32

no material whatsoever has been produced that the said mobile phone

¶33

belongs to either the mother or relative of the detenu and there is no delivery report has also been available. In the absence of the same, valuable right guaranteed to the detenu as to the intimation of his arrest, steps be taken by the detenu to get him out has been denied and hence, prays for appropriate orders.

¶34

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶35

¶36

Per contra , Mr.C.Iyyapparaj, learned Additional Public

¶37

Prosecutor appearing for the State would submit that in the post detention representation dated 20.12.2018, the petitioner did not raise

¶38

any prejudice in that regard and would further add that the 2^nd respondent/Detaining Authority, after due and proper application of mind, has rightly clamped the order of detention and hence prays for

¶39

dismissal of this petition.

¶40

This Court has considered the rival submissions and also

¶41

perused the entire materials placed before it.

¶42

As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the

¶43

petitioner that though in Page No.136 of the booklet, arrest intimation related to the ground case said to have been sent through mobile phone, it

¶44

is not clear that the message has been delivered to the concerned address and it is not clear whether the concerned addressee is his relative or his friend. In the absence of vital information, it cannot be said that the arrest

¶45

intimation has been given to the concerned relative or friend and in the absence of such material, valuable right guaranteed to the detenu as to

¶46

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶47

¶48

the further steps taken to get him out in the said case has been vitiated

¶49

and hence on the sole ground, the impugned order warrants interference.

¶50

8. Accordingly, the Habeas Corpus Petition stands allowed and the

¶51

Detention Order passed by the second respondent in Memo
C.NO.133/G/IS/2018, dated 08.12.2018 is set aside and the detenu
namely S.Riyazudeen, S/o.Sulaiman, aged 23 years who is confined at
Central Prison, Coimbatore, is set at liberty forthwith unless his detention
/ custody is required in connection with any other case / proceedings.
[M.S.N., J] [M.N.K., J]
16.04.2019
Internet : Yes/No
Index :Yes/No
sk
To
1.The Secretary to Government
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai-600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police/
Detaining Authority
City Police Office,
Huzur Road, Coimbatore City,
Coimbatore-18.

¶52

3.The Public Prosecutor High Court, Madras.

¶53

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶54

¶55

M.SATHYANARAYANAN, J., AND M.NIRMAL KUMAR, J., sk

¶56

HCP.No.2905 of 2018

¶57

16.04.2019

¶58

http://www.judis.nic.in

Rabiya v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rabiya v. the Secretary to Government

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

Lathasree Vs Government of Tamilnadu

Geetha Vs the Additional Secretary to

S.Sumathi Vs the State Rep. by

V.Gopi Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

E.Gothawari Vs the Principal Secretary to Government

M.Mano Ranjitham Vs the Secretary to the Government