Quashed

Venkatesan@Venkat v. the Secretary to Government

Madras HC24 Jul 2020HCP/93/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of habeas corpus, quashing a detention order passed against the petitioner. The court found the order vitiated due to the detaining authority's non-application of mind regarding facts about similar cases and the detainee's failure to file a bail petition.

What did the court decide?

Detention order quashed; petitioner directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless presence required for another case.

Venkatesan@Venkat Vs the Secretary to… — 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

¶5

H.C.P.No.93 of 2020

¶6

Venkatesan @ Venkat

¶7

... Petitioner
Vs
1. The Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept.,
Secretariat,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Chennai City, Vepery,
Chennai 600 007.
... Respondents

¶8

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 21.08.2019 in BCDFGISSSVLr.No.520/2019 against the Petitioner namely Thiru Venkatesan @ Venkat, confined at Central Prison, Puzhal and set aside the same and direct the Respondents to produce the Detenu namely Thiru Venkatesan @ Venkat S/o.Kesavan, aged about 24 years before this Court and set the detenu at liberty.

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Narendren

¶10

For Respondents: Mr.R.Prathap Kumar, Additional Public Prosecutor. O R D E R (Order of the court was made by N.KIRUBAKARAN.J.,)

¶11

The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

¶12

2.The Petitioner has challenged the detention order passed against him in Lr.No.520/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 21.08.2019 by the

¶13

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

¶14

Second Respondent as he has got two adverse cases registered against him.

¶15

3.Heard Mr.R.Narendren, 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 the similar case referred in the grounds of detention Order in Paragraph No.4, regarding the imminent possibility of coming out on bail, is not similar in nature. Moreover, the detenu has not filed any bail petition. Therefore, there is non-application of mind on the part of the detaining authority while passing the Detention Order 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 Lr.No.520/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 21.08.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Thiru Venkatesan @ Venkat S/o.Kesavan, aged about 24 years, who is confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai is directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless his presence is required in connection with any other case.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar

¶20

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶21

ay To 1. The Secretary to the Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Dept., Secretariat, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Vepery, Chennai 600 007.

¶22

The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai.

¶23

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

¶24

The Joint Secretary public (Law & Order), High Court,Madras

¶25

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶26

H.C.P.No.93 of 2020

¶27

RLD(CO)
GS(16/09/2020)

¶28

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

Venkatesan@Venkat v. the Secretary to Government

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Venkatesan@Venkat 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

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

Reshma Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to the Government