Dismissed

P.Bhaskar Rao v. the State Represented

Madras HC23 Aug 2021HCP/388/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a Habeas Corpus petition regarding the detention of his son under Tamil Nadu Act 14/1982. The Court observed that the detention order under challenge had already been quashed by this Court in a previous order dated 14.08.2020, rendering the present petition closed.

What did the court decide?

The Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed in view of the prior quashing of the detention order.

P.Bhaskar Rao Vs the State Represented — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED: 23.08.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.N.PRAKASH AND THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶5

H.C.P.No.388 of 2020

¶6

P.Bhaskar Rao S/o.Prakash

¶7

..Petitioner

¶8

Vs.

¶9

The State represented by its Secretary to Government,

¶10

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶11

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District, Vellore – 9. ..Respondents

¶12

Habeas Corpus Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the records leading to the detention of Suryaprakash Rao @ Nani S/o.Bhaskar Rao, aged about 34 years, under Act 14/1982 vide detention order dated 20.10.2019 on the file of second respondent made in proceedings in C3/D.O.No.116/2019, quash the same, consequently, direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenu, who is lodged at Central Prison, Salem, before this Court and set him at liberty.

¶13

For Petitioner : Mr.C.D.Sugumar

¶14

For Respondents: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Government Advocate [crl.side]

¶15

ORDER

¶16

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

¶17

The petitioner is the father of the detenu viz., Suryaprakash Rao @ Nani S/o.Baskar Rao, aged about 34 years. The detenu has been detained by the second respondent by his order in C3/D.O.No.116/2019 dated 20.10.2019, holding him to be a

¶18

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

¶19

"Drug Offender", as contemplated under Section 2(e) of Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The said order is under challenge in this Habeas Corpus Petition.

¶20

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶21

learned Government Advocate [crl.side] appearing for the State.

¶22

It is seen that the detention order in C3/D.O.No.116/2019 dated 20.10.2019 passed against the detenu viz., Suryaprakash Rao @ Nani S/o.Baskar Rao, aged about 34 years, has been quashed by this Court vide order dated 14.08.2020. In view of the same, this Habeas Corpus Petition stands closed.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS VII)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

¶28

¶29

The Secretary to Government,

¶30

Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Fort St.George, Chennai – 600 009.

¶31

The District Collector and District Magistrate, Vellore District,

¶32

Vellore – 9.

¶33

The Joint Secretary to Government of Tamil Nadu, Public, Law and Order Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 9.

¶34

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

¶35

The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.

H.C.P.No.388 of 2020

GPL(CO)

RGA(16/09/2021)

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

P.Bhaskar Rao v. the State Represented

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P.Bhaskar Rao v. the State Represented

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

Suganya Vs State Rep.by

S.Soniya Vs The Deputy Inspector General of Prisons

Manoharan, Aged 54 Years, Vs State by

Chitra Vs State of Tamil Nadu Rep by

M.Navaneetham Vs the Secretary to Government

Murugesan Vs the Additional Chief Secretaty to Government