M.Yesubai Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

M.Yesubai Vs The Additional Chief Secretary to… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Madras HC (2023)

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT

DATED: 03.10.2023

Coram

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.SUNDAR and THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.SAKTHIVEL

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

M.Yesubai, W/o.Manickam, 2-92, Salvation Army Street, Seethapai, Boothapandy Post, Thovalai Taluk, Kanniyakumari District. .. Petitioner

vs

1.The State of Tamil Nadu, Represented by the Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli. .. Respondents

Prayer:- Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for the entire records

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

connected with the detention order passed in P.D.No.19 of 2023 dated 05.04.2023 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same and direct the respondents to produce the detenu or body of the detenu namely the petitioner's son i.e., Aravinth, aged about 30 years, S/o.Manickam, now detained at the Central Prison, Palayamkottai before this Court and set him at liberty forthwith.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.Pragalathan For Respondents : Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar Additional Public Prosecutor

ORDER

[Order of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.]

Captioned 'Habeas Corpus Petition' ['HCP' for the sake of

brevity] has been filed by the mother of the detenu assailing a 'preventive detention order dated 05.04.2023 bearing reference P.D.No.19 of 2023' [hereinafter 'impugned preventive detention order' for the sake of brevity and convenience'] made by 'second respondent' [hereinafter 'Detaining Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity]. To be noted, sponsoring authority has not been arrayed as a respondent but we find that Station House Officer of Aralvoimozhy Police Station is the sponsoring authority [hereinafter 'Sponsoring Authority' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

2/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

2 .Captioned HCP has been admitted by Hon'ble Coordinate

Division Bench in the Admission Board on 04.05.2023.

3 .Impugned detention order has been made under 'The Tamil

Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Cyber law offenders, Drug-offenders, Forest-offenders, Goondas, Immoral traffic offenders, Sand-offenders, Sexual-offenders, Slum-grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 (Tamil Nadu Act No.14 of 1982)' [hereinafter 'Act 14 of 1982' for the sake of convenience and clarity] on the premise that the detenu is a 'Goonda' within the meaning of Section 2(f) of Act 14 of 1982.

4 .There is no adverse case. This solitary case which is the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order is Crime No.54 of 2023 on the file of Aralvoimozhy Police Station for alleged offences under Sections 341 and 302 of 'The Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)' [hereinafter 'IPC' for the sake of convenience and clarity] and subsequently altered into sections 147, 148, 341, 294(b) and 302 of IPC. Considering to the nature of

the challenge to the impugned detention order, it is not necessary to delve into the factual matrix of the case.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

3/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

5.Mr.N.Pragalathan , learned counsel on record for petitioner and

Mr.A.Thiruvadi Kumar, learned State Additional Public Prosecutor for all respondents are before us.

6.In the support affidavit qua captioned HCP very many points have been raised but Mr.N.Pragalathan, learned counsel for HCP petitioner (to be noted detenu is the son of HCP petitioner) in the final hearing today raised a point that 'live and proximate link' between grounds of detention and purpose of detention has snapped. Elaborating his argument in this direction, learned counsel submitted that even according to grounds of detention and the impugned preventive detention order, the date of arrest in the ground case is 21.02.2023 and the impugned preventive detention order has been made on 05.04.2023. It was pointed out that the ground case is a solitary case which constituted the sole substratum of the impugned preventive detention order. As a legal principle, a recent Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court ( Sushanta Kumar Banik Vs. State of Tripura & others reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 813 : 2022 SCC Online SC 1333) was pressed into service.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

4/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

7.Learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that materials

had to be collected and time was consumed in this exercise.

8.We have carefully considered the rival submissions.

9.We find that collection and collation of records cannot be the

convincing explanation qua live and proximate link between grounds of detention and purpose of detention getting snapped.

10. Banik principle has been respectfully followed by this Court and one such order is order dated 20.06.2023 made in H.C.P.No.72 of 2023 which was pressed into service by learned counsel for HCP petitioner. The

scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:-

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

5/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

6/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

7/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

8/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

9/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

10/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

11/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

12/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

13/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

14/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

15/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

11.We find that the case on hand is one where the substratum of

the impugned preventive detention order is constituted by a solitary case and therefore we sustain the submission of the HCP petitioner.

12.Ergo, the sequitur is, captioned HCP is allowed. Impugned detention order dated 05.04.2023 bearing reference P.D.No.19 of 2023 made by the second respondent is set aside and the detenu Thiru.Aravinth, aged 30 years, son of Thiru.Manickam, is directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case/cases. There shall be no order as

to costs.

(M.S.,J.) (R.S.V.,J.) 03.10.2023

Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes ps

P.S: Registry to forthwith communicate this order to Jail authorities in Central Prison, Palayamkottai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

16/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

To

1.The Secretary to Government, Home, Prohibition and Excise Department, Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.

2.The District Collector and District Magistrate, Kanniyakumari District, Nagercoil.

3.The Superintendent of Prison, Central Prison, Palayamkottai, Tirunelveli.

4.The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

17/18

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

M.SUNDAR, J., and R.SAKTHIVEL, J.,

ps

H.C.P(MD)No.557 of 2023

03.10.2023

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

18/18