Allowed

Shanthi v. the Secretary to the Government

Madras HC24 Jul 2020HCP/92/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed a detention order issued 39 days after the arrest of the petitioner's son, holding the inordinate delay vitiates the order. The court allowed the Habeas Corpus petition and directed the authorities to release the detenu unless required for another case.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed; Habeas Corpus allowed; Detenu directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless presence required for another case.

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 24.07.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI H.C.P.No.92 of 2020

¶5

Shanthi ... Petitioner/
Mother of the detenue
Vs
1.The Secretary to the Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2.District Collector and District Magistrate,
Tiruvannamalai District,
Tiruvannamalai.
... Respondents

¶6

PRAYER : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in connection with the Order of Detention passed by the Second Respondent dated 05.11.2019 in D.O.No.89/2019-C2 against the Petitioner Son Chinnarasu, male aged 34 years, S/o.Babu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore and set aside the same and direct the Respondents to produce the Detenu before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶7

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Karunakaran.

¶8

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor.

¶9

1/3

¶10

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

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

(Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)

¶13

The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

¶14

2.The Petitioner who is the mother of the detenu has challenged the detention order passed against her son in D.O.No.89/2019-C2 dated 05.11.2019 by the Second Respondent as he has got three adverse cases registered against him.

¶15

3.Heard Mr.N.Karunakaran, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondents.

¶16

4.It is seen from the records that there was a delay in passing the Detention Order. Though the Detenu was arrested on 27.09.2019, the Detention Order was passed only on 05.11.2019 and the same vitiates, the detention order and this petition has to be necessarily allowed.

¶17

5.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the Second Respondent in D.O.No.89/2019-C2 dated 05.11.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Chinnarasu, male aged 34 years, S/o.Babu, who is confined at Central Prison, Vellore is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶18

-s/dAssistant Registrar True Copy

¶19

Sub-Assistant Registrar ay To

¶20

1.The Secretary to the Government,

¶21

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

¶22

Chennai 600 009.

¶23

2.District Collector and District Magistrate, Tiruvannamalai District, Tiruvannamalai.

¶24

2/3

¶25

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

¶26

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Vellore.

¶27

4.The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai. 5.The Joint Secretary to Government Public Law & Order Fort St.George Chennai-09 H.C.P.No.92 of 2020

¶28

nr(co) aa30/07/2020

¶29

3/3

¶30

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

Shanthi v. the Secretary to the Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shanthi v. the Secretary to the 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

Madhu Vs the Commissioner of Police

D.Pradeep Vs the State Represented by

Munni Vs the State Represented by Its

Narayanan@Orapudi Narayanan Vs State through

Venkatesan@Venkat Vs the Secretary to Government

Reshma Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by