Allowed

B.Deepa v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Madras HC27 Jul 2020HCP/99/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition filed under Article 226 for Habeas Corpus. It held that a detention order passed under Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 was vitiated because the illegible Form 91 was supplied to the detenu, and consequently, quashed the order and directed the release of the detenu.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.734/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 31.10.2019 was quashed, and the detenu Anandharaj was directed to be set at liberty forthwith unless required for another case.

B.Deepa Vs the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 27.07.2020

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.KIRUBAKARAN AND

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE V.M.VELUMANI

¶6

H.C.P.No.99 of 2020

¶7

B.Deepa ... Petitioner
Vs
1. The State of Tamil Nadu,
Rep. by its Secretary to Government,
Home, Prohibition and Excise Department,
Fort St.George,
Chennai 600 009.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
The Commissioner office,
Vepery, Chennai – 600 007. ... Respondents

¶8

PRAYER :

¶9

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records relating to the detention order in Memo No.734/BCDFGISSSV/2019, dated 31.10.2019 passed by the 2^nd respondent under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982 and set aside the same and direct the respondent to produce the Petitioner husband's sister husband Anandharaj, the detenu, now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai before this Court and set the Petitioner husband's sister husband Anandharaj, Son of Jeevanathan, aged about 50 years the detenu herein set him at liberty.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.M.Baskar.

¶11

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

¶12

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

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

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

¶15

The matter was heard through "Video Conferencing".

¶16

2.The Petitioner who is the cousin of the detenu has challenged the detention order passed against the detenu in Memo No.734/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 31.10.2019 by the Second Respondent based on the ground case registered against him.

¶17

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

¶18

4.It is seen from the records that illegible copy of Form 91 occurring at Page No.525 has been supplied to the detenu in the booklet furnished to him and the same vitiates the detention order. Therefore, this petition has to be necessarily allowed.

¶19

5.Accordingly, the detention order passed by the Second Respondent in Memo No.734/BCDFGISSSV/2019 dated 31.10.2019 is quashed and the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed. The detenu viz., Anandharaj, Son of Jeevanathan, aged about 50 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.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar

¶22

//True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

ay To 1. The Secretary to Government, The State of Tamil Nadu, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009. 2. The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai, The Commissioner office, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

The Public Prosecutor, High Court of Madras, Chennai.

¶27

H.C.P.No.99 of 2020

¶28

RSV(CO) CS/04/08/2020

¶29

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

B.Deepa v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

B.Deepa v. the State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by Its

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

Narayanan@Orapudi Narayanan Vs State through

Venkatesan@Venkat Vs the Secretary to Government

Reshma Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep by

Sureshkumar @ Suresh Vs State Rep by

Sivanesan Vs State of Tamilnadu Rep.by

Rathinamani Vs the Secretary to the Government