Wife challenged her husband's preventive detention as a 'Goonda' under the Tamil Nadu Act 14 of 1982. The Additional Public Prosecutor produced the Government order revoking the detention. The court dismissed the habeas corpus petition as infructuous.
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.771 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 11.07.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH AND
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNDER MOHAN
H.C.P.No.771 of 2024
Sangeetha ... Petitioner/Wife of the detenue
Vs.
1.The State rep. by Secretary to Government Home Prohibition and Excise DepartmentalFort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The State rep. by The Commissioner of Police O/o The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team IV, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal,
Page 1 of 4
H.C.P.No.771 of 2024
Chennai – 600 064.
... Respondents
Prayer : Habeas Corpus Petition filed unde r Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Habeas Corpus to call for the entire records culminating in the passing of the order of detention on petitioner's husband, the detenue, under Act 14 of 1982 vide Detention Order 228/BCDFGISSSV/2024 dated 20.03.2024 on the file of the second respondent herein and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the respondents herein to produce the body and person of the detenue by name Saikumar S/o Sri Ramulu, aged about 52 years now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal at once before this Hon'ble Court and thereafter set him at liberty from the detention.
For Petitioner : Mr.M.Sankar
For Respondents : Mr.A.Gokulakrishnan Additional Public Prosecutor
ORDER
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
The petitioner herein is the wife of the detenue viz., Saikumar,
S/o.Sriramulu, the detenue, now confined at Central Prison, Puzhal, Chennai, has come forward with this petition challenging the detention order passed by the second respondent dated 20 .03.2024 s lapped on her
Page 2 of 4
H.C.P.No.771 of 2024
husband, branding him as "Goonda" under the Tamil Nadu Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Bootleggers, Drug Offenders, Forest Offenders, Goondas, Immoral Traffic Offenders, Sand Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982 [Tamil Nadu Act, 14 of 1982].
2.The learned Additional Public Prosecutor would submit that the order of detention passed by the second respondent as against the petitioner's husband, dated 20 .03.2024 has been revoked by the Government in G.O.Rt.No.2584, Home, Prohibition and Excise (XIII) Department, dated 30.04.2024 and he has also produced a copy of the said order.
3.Recording the submission of the learned Additional Public
Prosecutor, this petition is dismissed as the same has become infructuous.
[M.S.R., J] [S.M., J] 11.07.2024
Anu
Internet : Yes Index : Yes / No Neutral Citation : Yes / No
Page 3 of 4
H.C.P.No.771 of 2024
M.S.RAMESH, J. and SUNDER MOHAN, J.
Anu
1.The Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise DepartmentalFort St. George, Chennai – 600 009.
2.The Commissioner of Police O/o The Commissioner of Police Greater Chennai Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
3.The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team IV, Vepery, Chennai – 600 007.
4.The Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal, Chennai – 600 064.
5.The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras.
H.C.P.No.771 of 2024
11.07.2024
Page 4 of 4
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sangeetha
The State rep. by Secretary to Government, Home Prohibition and Excise Department
The State rep. by The Commissioner of Police, Greater Chennai
The Inspector of Police, Central Crime Branch, EDF-II, Team IV
The Superintendent of Prison, Puzhal
M.S.Ramesh
Sunder Mohan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
