Allowed

Shruthi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Madras HC26 Apr 2021HCP/1885/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a habeas corpus petition to quash her husband's detention order under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Court found that the remand extension order was not included in the record book furnished to the detenue, thereby violating due process. Consequently, the detention order was quashed and he was directed to be released.

What did the court decide?

The detention order in Memo No.384/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020 is set aside, and the detenu is directed to be released forthwith unless required for another case.

Shruthi Vs State of Tamil Nadu — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 26.04.2021

¶3

Coram

¶4

The Honourable Mr. Justice P.N.PRAKASH and The Honourable Mr. Justice R.PONGIAPPAN

¶5

H.C.P.No.1885 of 2020

¶6

Shruthi ...Petitioner
.Vs.
1.State of Tamil Nadu represented by
The Secretary to Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Puzhal -II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station,
Chennai. ...Respondents

¶7

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the records in Memo No.384/BCDFGISSSV/2020 passed by the 2^nd respondent on 21.09.2020 on the file of the 2^nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondent to produce the petitioner's husband Wilson, son of Joseph, aged about 28 years, before this Court, who now confined in Central Prison, Puzhal – II and set him at liberty.

¶8

For Petitioner : Mr.A.Elumalai For Respondents :^{Mr.R.Prathap Kumar,} Addl. Public Prosecutor

¶9

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

¶10

ORDER

¶11

[Order of the Court was made by P.N.PRAKASH, J.]

¶12

The petitioner is the wife of Wilson, son of Joseph, aged about 28 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in Memo No.384/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020, holding him to be a "Goonda", as contemplated under Section 2(f) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶13

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶14

Though several grounds have been raised, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly focused his arguments on the ground that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been furnished to the detenu, which caused great prejudice to the detenu and he has been prevented from making an effective representation for consideration of the authorities concerned. Therefore, the impugned order of detention is vitiated in law.

¶15

A perusal of the booklet would go to show that the remand extension order pertaining to the ground case placed before the detaining authority has not been enclosed in the booklet furnished to the detenu. Therefore, non-furnishing of the above materials would obviously deprive of his opportunity to make effective representation and hence, we are of the opinion that the detention order is liable to be quashed on this ground.

¶16

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in Memo No.384/BCDFGISSSV/2020 dated 21.09.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, viz., Wilson, son of Joseph, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶17

Sd/Assistant Registrar

¶18

//True Copy//

¶19

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶20

nsd

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

1.The Secretary to Government,
Department of Home, Prohibition and Excise,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai.
2.The Commissioner of Police,
Greater Chennai,
Office of the Commissioner of Police,
Vepery, Chennai-7.
3.The Superintendent of Police,
Central Prison-Puzhal -II,
Puzhal, Chennai.
4.The Inspector of Police,
P-5, M.K.B. Nagar Police Station,
Chennai.
5.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu,
Public, Law and Order Department,
Secretariat, Chennai – 9.
6.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.1885 of 2020
LN(CO)
RN(04/05/2021)

¶24

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

Shruthi v. State of Tamil Nadu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shruthi v. State 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

Chandra Vs the State of Tamil Nadu

Ramamoorthy Vs the Secretary to Government

Dilli Vs the Additional Chief Secretary to Government of Tamilnadu

R.Ragul Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Ammu Vs the State of Tamilnadu

Shanthi Vs the Secretary to Government