This habeas corpus petition challenged the detention of Yuvaraj. The High Court found the preventive detention order passed under Act 14 of 1982 based on suspicious facts insufficient. The court quashed the order and released the detenu.
The detention order dated 16.09.2024 was set aside, and the detenu Yuvaraj was directed to be set at liberty forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.12.2024
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JOTHIRAMAN
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
Kala
W/o Ettiappan
.. Petitioner
v.
.. Respondents
Page 1 of 7
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus, calling for the records in Memo No.961/BCDFGISSSV/2024 passed by the 2nd respondent on 16.09.2024 on the file of the 2nd respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents to produce petitioner's son Yuvaraj @ Uppili, Son of Ettiappan, aged about 30 years, before this Hon'ble Court, who is now detained in Central Prison, Puzhal-II and set him at liberty.
For Petitioner :: Mr.A.Elumalai
For Respondents :: Mr.R.Muniyapparaj Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.)
The order of detention passed by the second respondent in Memo No.961/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 16.09.2024 is sought to be quashed in the
present habeas corpus petition.
adverse cases and the ground case. In respect of first two adverse cases,
which were registered in the year 2023, they have no proximity with the
Page 2 of 7
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
ground case. The third adverse case was registered by C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station in Crime No.122 of 2024 and the ground case also was registered by C-2 Elephant Gate Police Station in Crime No.169 of 2024.
_____________ Page 3 of 7_
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
detenu had not paid money for the food taken or he demanded money from the cashier of the tea stall. Similarly, perusal of the ground case reveals that the complainant was one Mr.Velmurugan and he is running Ganesh Bhavan Tiffin Centre at No.73, Wall Tax Road. The third adverse case was also in Wall Tax Road and the ground case was also in Wall Tax Road. There also, the facts as stated by the respondents would reveal that the detenu demanded money for consuming alcohol. He has taken away Rs.350/- from the shirt pocket of the complainant.
case raise serious suspicion and even in such circumstances, the cases registered can be dealt with by the authorities under the regular penal law. We are not offering any opinion with reference to the facts as narrated in the adverse cases or in the ground case and those cases are to be dealt with in accordance with law and by conducting a proper trial before the competent Court. As far as invoking the preventive detention law is concerned, we are not satisfied with the manner in which the Act 14 of 1982 has been invoked by the detaining authority. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are
_____________ Page 4 of 7_
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
inclined to interfere with the impugned detention order.
Uppili, S/o Ettiappan, aged 30 years, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai i s directed to be set at liberty forthwith, unless his confinement is required in connection with any other case.
Index : yes (S.M.S.,J.) (M.J.R.,J.) Neutral citation : yes/no 17.12.2024
ss
To
Page 5 of 7
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
Page 6 of 7
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J. AND M.JOTHIRAMAN,J.
ss
H.C.P.No.2619 of 2024
17.12.2024
_____________ Page 7 of 7_
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the detention order invoked under the Preventive Detention Act, 1982, was legally sustainable.
Whether the petition praying for a writ of Habeas Corpus calling for records and quashing of the detention order should be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kala W/o Ettiappan
State of Tamil Nadu represented by The Secretary to Government Department of Home, Prohibition & Excise Secretariat
The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Office of Commissioner of Police Vepery
Superintendent of Prison Central Prison, Puzhal-II
Inspector of Police C-2, Elephant Gate Police Station Chennai
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
M.JOTHIRAMAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
