Allowed

Manjula v. the State Rep by Its

Madras HC25 Jun 2021HCP/235/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This habeas corpus petition challenged the detention order of Govindan, held to be a bootlegger. The High Court, on its own motion, set aside the detention order because the bail order in the ground case was not translated into the vernacular language, infringing the detenu's right to effective legal representation.

What did the court decide?

The detention order passed by the District Collector dated 31.10.2020 is set aside. The detenu Govindan is directed to be released forthwith unless required for any other case.

Manjula Vs the State Rep by Its — Bail and Remand | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 25.06.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH and

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.PONGIAPPAN

¶6

H.C.P.No.235 of 2021

¶7

Manjula,
W/o.Govindan ... Petitioner /
Wife of the detenu
versus
1.The State rep. by its:
The State of Tamil Nadu,
Prohibition and Excise Department,
Secretariat, Fort St.George,
Chennai - 600 009.
2.The District Collector
and District Magistrate,
Office of the District Collector
and District Magistrate,
Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi.
3.The Superintendent,
Central Prison, Cuddalore District.
4.The Superintendent of Police,
Office of Superintendent of Police,
Kallakurichi District,
Kallakurichi.
5.The Inspector of Police,
Sankarapuram Police Station,
Kallakurichi District. ... Respondents

¶8

Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the entire records relating to the impugned order of detention passed by the second respondent in D.O.No.C2/15/2020 dated 31.10.2020 and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to produce the detenu Govindan, son of Singaram, aged about 28 years, petitioner's husband, now confined at Central Prison, Cuddalore before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶9

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

¶10

For Petitioner : M/s.Krishnasamy Chinnasamy For Respondents : Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate (Crl. Side)

¶11

O R D E R

¶12

[Order of the Court was made by R.PONGIAPPAN, J.]

¶13

The petitioner is the wife of Govindan, son of Singaram, aged about 28 years, who is the detenu. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in D.O.No.C2/15/2020 dated 31.10.2020, holding him to be a "Bootlegger", as contemplated under Section 2(b) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶14

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned Government Advocate (Crl. Side) appearing for the respondents and we have also perused the records carefully.

¶15

Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several other grounds to assail the order of detention, he has mainly focused his argument on the ground that the bail order pertaining to the ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. This deprived the detenu from making effective representation. Therefore, on this sole ground, the detention order is liable to be quashed.

¶16

On consideration of the submissions made on either side and upon perusal of the documents available on record especially Page No.87 of the booklet, it is clear that the bail order pertaining to the ground case has not been translated in vernacular language. Thus, the impugned detention order is liable to be set aside on this ground.

¶17

In the result, the Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed and the order of detention in D.O.No.C2/15/2020 dated 31.10.2020, passed by the second respondent is set aside. The detenu, namely, Govindan, son of Singaram, aged about 28 years, is directed to be released forthwith unless his detention is required in connection with any other case.

¶18

Sd/-

¶19

Assistant Registrar(CO)

¶20

//True copy//

¶21

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

1.The State rep. by its: The State of Tamil Nadu, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai - 600 009.

¶25

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Office of the District Collector and District Magistrate, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi. 3.The Superintendent, Central Prison, Cuddalore District. 4.The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, Kallakurichi District, Kallakurichi. 5.The Inspector of Police, Sankarapuram Police Station, Kallakurichi District.

¶26

6.The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai - 600 009. 7.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras. H.C.P.No.235 of 2021

¶27

GSM(CO) GMY(30/06/2021)

¶28

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

Manjula v. the State Rep by Its

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjula v. the State 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

Vinoth Kumar @ Vinoth Vs State Rep.by

Govindan @ Govindaraj Vs State Rep.by

Santhosh Pandaragiri Vs State Rep by

Sathiyavanan Vs the Secrerary to the Government

Valarmathi Vs the State of Tamilnadu Rep.by Its

A.Savithriammal Vs The State